Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bury Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill,

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed

Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill,

As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH OWNED SHIPYARDS.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards on the Chinese seaboard are wholly or partially owned by British firms; and the names of such firms?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): So far as I am aware, there are seven such ship-building and ship-repairing yards.
With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the list of names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

1. Taku Tug and Lighter Company, Limited, Tientsin.
2. Tientsin Lighter Company, Limited, Tientsin.
1846
3. Shanghai Dock and Engineering Company, Limited, Shanghai.
4. New Engineering and Shipbuilding Company, Limited, Shanghai.
5. Hongkong and Whampoa Dock Company, Limited, Hongkong
6. W. S. Bailey and Company, Limited, Hongkong.
7. Taikoo Dockyard and Engineering Company, Limited, Hongkong.

BRITISH MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Mr. LUMLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of manufactured goods exported from this country to China for each year since 1920?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer contains a table of figures. Accordingly, my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to it being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows the value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured exported from the United Kingdom and consigned to China during the years specified:


Year.
Produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom.
Imported Merchandise.




£
£


1920
…
41,761,000
237,000


1921
…
24,833,000
131,000


1922
…
21,837,000
74,000


1923
…
17,290,000
84,000


1924
…
19,082,000
72,000


1925
…
13,535,000
76,000


The corresponding particulars for 1926 are not yet available.

Prior to 1st April, 1923, the particulars relate to the exports from Great Britain and Ireland. From that date they relate to the exports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

FOREIGN FORCES, SHANGHAI (COOPERATION.

Mr. TAYLOR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can define the relations of General Duncan to the contingents of foreign Powers at Shanghai; and whether these foreign Powers have placed any authority in his hands?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington - Evans): Although the contingents of the other
Powers at Shanghai are working in the closest co-operation with General Duncan, no reports have been received of their having been placed under his orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (IMPORTS).

Mr. B. SMITH: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the length of cinematograph films imported into this country from each of the im-

Year.
Germany.
France,
United States of America.
Other Foreign Countries.
British Countries.
Total Imports.
Net Imports, i.e., Total Imports less Re-exports.





Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.
Thous. lin. ft.





(a) Positives, i.e., films containing a picture for
exhibition, whether developed or not,of a standard width of 1⅜ inches.


1919
…
…
7
2,559
15,077
1,228
464
19,335
15,577


1920
…
…
192
4,061
17,200
3,054
506
25,013
20,933


1921
…
…
778
3,154
11,557
2,280
793
18,562
14,582


1922
…
…
2,357
3,312
11,981
1,900
631
20,181
16,708


1923
…
…
2,704
3,043
12,395
1,610
705
20,457
16,975


1924
…
…
2,034
9,305
22,769
811
1,543
36,462
32,052


1925
…
…
2,200
5,888
29,180
1,587
4,791
43,646
38,450


1926
…
…
1,592
4,847
9,488
664
358
16,949
13,866


(b) Negatives, i.e., films containing a photograph, whether developed or
not, from which positives can be printed, of a standard width of 1⅜ inches.


1919
…
…
—
394
5,299
121
43
5,857
2,578


1920
…
…
9
904
3,353
201
140
4,607
1,946


1921
…
…
69
1,446
3,842
277
120
5,754
2,228


1922
…
…
963
1,625
4,066
406
311
7,371
2,883


1923
…
…
1,028
954
4,712
324
222
7,240
2,219


1924
…
…
942
1,144
4,018
399
189
6,692
2,347


1925
…
…
1,041
1,586
6,310
286
92
9,315
3,062

1926
…
…
860
795
4,122
448
200
6,425
2,862

Notes.—(1) The particulars for 1926 are provisional and subject to slight amendment on final examination of the returns.

(2)Prior to the 1st April, 1923, the particulars relate to imports into Great Britain and Ireland. From that date they relate to imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

(3)The particulars given relate to the countries from which films were consigned to the United Kingdom, and these are not necessarily the countries of production in all cases. The countries in which the films were produced cannot be stated.

MOTOR CARS.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of

porting countries annually since the end of the War?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-USTER: As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of the hon. Member, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows the length of exposed cinematograph films imported into the United Kingdom during the under-mentioned years, distinguishing the principal countries from which the goods were consigned:

motor cars imported from Canada during the last three months; and what was the total value of imports of motor cars from the rest of the world in that period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the particulars asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows the value of the total imports of motor cars and parts into the United Kingdom in the three months ended February, 1927, consigned from Canada and from all other countries:


Description.
Consigned from Canada.
Consigned from other countries.



£
£


Motor cars complete:




Touring cars (including cabs)
191,577
758,049


Commercial Vehicles
—
8,721


Chassis for Motor Cars
94,828
263,066


Other parts (excluding rubber tyres and tubes)
31,784
650,746


Total Imports
318,189
1,680,582

Sir H. CROFT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that motor cars exported from Canada to Great Britain on a preferential basis are manufactured in Canada and that the labour used on these cars is entirely Canadian?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Before motor cars consigned from Canada are admitted into this country at the preferential rate of duty, satisfactory documentary evidence is invariably required that at least 25 per cent. of the total value is the result of labour within the British Empire.

Sir H. CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this percentage is rather absurd? Is not the result that the Americans are sending parts into Canada and having them put together by Canadian labour?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not an acknowledged fact that there is more than 25 per cent. expended in labour on any motor car?

Mr. McNEILL: I think the supplementary questions really amount to matters of opinion.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a matter of common knowledge?

Sir H. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question, as it is very serious from the point of view of labour?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the object of Protection to make the other people pay?

Sir F. HALL: No, the object of Protection is to find labour for our own people.

Sir H. CROFT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the number of motor chassis exported from Great Britain to Australia and what was the total export of the rest of the world during the last three months for which information is complete?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the three months ended February last, 6,429 chassis made in the United Kingdom were recorded as exported to Australia. Corresponding particulars for this or for any other recent period less than a year are not available from the official published accounts of the principal exporting countries or of Australia.
The latest available Australian Annual Trade Account is that for 1924–5, and in that year the Australian imports of chassis without bodies numbered 62,079. Of these, 2,514 were declared as of United Kingdom origin.

Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is a fact that the export of chassis to Australia is equal to, if it does not exceed, that of the rest of the world at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I could not answer that without notice, and indeed I do not think I could answer it with notice, because while we get out our trade returns rapidly, we do not get the returns of other countries until we get their annual returns.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the exports of chassis to Australia are about 10 times greater?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am sure the figure I have stated in my answer is accurate.

BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION).

Mr. SMITHERS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the
annual cost for the past five years of the office of registration of business names; has he experienced any difficulty in obtaining the required information; have any legal proceedings been instituted; if so, how many, and with what results, for non-compliance; and approximately what percentage of business firms who come within the scope of the 1916 Act has in fact registered?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is long and contains some tables of figures. I would accordingly propose, with the permission of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Year ended.
Cost.
Fees.


England.
Scotland.
England.
Scotland.







£
£
£
£


31st March, 1923
…
…
…
…
7,100
300
6,210
412


31st March, 1924
…
…
…
…
5,445
300
5,550
411


31st March, 1925
…
…
…
…
5,260
300
5,505
477


31st March, 1926
…
…
…
…
4,000
300
5,610
451


31st March, 1927
…
…
…
…
3,800
300
5,620
402

As regards the second part, no difficulty has in general been experienced in obtaining information from persons who to the knowledge of the Registry are required to give information.

Year.
No. of Cases.
Convicted.
Dismissed.
Withdrawn or not served.
Bound over.


1922
…
…
7
4

—
1


1923
…
…
10
8
—
2
—


1924
…
…
17
15
—
2
—


1925
…
…
36
30
4
2
—


1926
…
…
26
23
3
—
—

In Scotland proceedings have been instituted in seven cases during the past five years and convictions obtained on each occasion. These figures do not include proceedings instituted by police or members of the public.

No data exist on which the estimate asked for in the last part of the question can be framed.

MACHINE GUNS (EXPORTS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what applications for the export of machine

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the last prosecution took place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In 1926 there were 26 cases and 23 convictions.

Commander BELLAIRS: How many-officials are employed on this work?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not say without notice.

Following are the figures promised:

In answer to the first part of the question, the cost, and amount received in fees, of the Register of Business Names during each of the years in question is as shown in the following table:

As regards the third part, the number of cases in which the Board of Trade has instituted legal proceedings is as follows:

guns have been made since 19th June, 1925, together with the names of the applicants; the reply in each case; and the destination in the case of applications granted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope to be able to have particulars circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the course of a few days.

INDUSTRIAL STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn
to the steps taken in certain foreign countries, and particularly in the United States of America, to prevent overproduction and consequent trade depressions by the careful collection of statistics showing stocks of goods in hand, probable consumption, forward contracts and anticipated outputs, and the circulation to manufacturers of the figures after analysis; and whether he has considered the possibility of similar information being collected and prepared in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the statistics to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and my Department has been discussing with various industries the possibility of further industrial statistics being collected in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to let me know when he comes to this very important matter?

Mr. RADFORD: May I ask whether any useful purpose is served by preparing these statistics, when foreign manufacturers are free to flood our markets with goods in competition with our own manufacturers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the first Supplementary Question, a good deal is already being done. In the cotton trade, for instance, a great deal of progress is being made, and I hope that in most important industries there will be means of keeping the Census of Production up to date. With regard to the second Supplementary Question, I think it is of value to industries in this country to know what the production is and in many cases, where it can be disclosed without prejudice, what the stocks are.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States, where this thing has been greatly developed, it is not only a census of production that is prepared, but also a forecast of consumption as nearly as this can be predicted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of that, but I think manufacturers who are up in their businesses in this country are quite as good at forecasting consumption as anybody else. I think it is of value in many cases to have a
knowledge of what is the capacity of production and what the stocks are.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the present state of trade depression is owing to the action of many hon. Members above the Gangway?

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it in order for an hon. Member to make insinuations against hon. Members of this party?

Mr. SPEAKER: Matters of opinion should come in Debate, and not at Question Time.

COMMITTEE ON BRITISH INDUSTRY.

Colonel GRETTON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Government Committee on Trade and Industry was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Balfour; who are the members of the Committee; what duties were assigned to this body; what have been the results achieved; and when it is expected that the duties of the Committee will terminate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a long one, and my hon. and gallant Friend will, perhaps, agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this Committee entails any expense to the Treasury?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question I think it is probable that the travelling expenses of members attending the Committee are paid.

Follonwing is the answer to the main Question:

The Committee on Industry and Trade was set up by the Prime Minister on 28th July, 1924. The Committee was originally composed as follows:

Sir Arthur Balfour, K.B.E. (Chairman),
Mr. John Baker, M.P.,
Sir William Beveridge, K.C.B.,
Mr. Henry Boothman,
Mr. J. T. Brownlie, C.B.E.
Mr. W. T. Charter,
Mr. C. T. Cramp,
Mr. Hugh Dalton, M.P., D.Sc.
Sir Harry Goschen, K.B.E
Mrs. M. A. Hamilton.
Mr. F. A. Hargreaves.
1855
Sir Norman Hill, Bart.,
Sir John S. Hindley, Bart.,
Mr. David Landale,
Sir W. Clare Lees, O.B.E.,
Mr. P. J. Pybus, C.B.E.,
Mr. Arthur Shaw,
Sir Allan Smith, K.B.E.,
Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, G.C.B.

Sir William Beveridge, Mr. Hugh Dalton and Mr. P. J. Pybus have since found it necessary to resign, and the following additional members have been appointed:

Sir William Ashley, Ph.D. (appointed 2nd December, 1924),
Sir W. Peter Rylands (appointed 30th April, 1925).

The Committee was appointed to inquire into the conditions and prospects of British industry and commerce, with special reference to the export trade, and to make recommendations in regard thereto.

The Committee has already issued the following volumes of information with regard to various aspects of its terms of reference:

Survey of Overseas Markets.
Survey of Industrial Relations.
Factors in Industrial and Commercial Efficiency (being Part I of a Survey of Industries).
Transport Development and Cotton Growing in East Africa.

These volumes have been very well received, and found to be of practical value to the industry and trade of the country.

The Committee is now preparing its fourth volume, the Survey of Industries, for publication.

The Committee hopes to issue its Report (the preparation of which is already in hand) towards the end of the current year.

CREDIT GUARANTEES.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 86.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what amount has been guaranteed, up to the last available date, under the credit guarantee scheme; what firms have applied for the benefit of the scheme; the names of the trading countries; and the British products chiefly affected by the operation of the scheme?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Up to the 2nd April, the Department has given guarantees amounting to £6,401,634.
I am unable to give the information asked for in the second part of the hon. Member's question, as it is an essential condition of the scheme that all inquiries and applications will be treated with strict confidence.
As to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the quarterly statements published in the "Board of Trade Journal," the latest of which appeared in the issue of the 27th January last.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH MANUFACTURED GOODS, (IMPORTS).

Mr. LUMLEY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of manufactured goods exported from this country TO Russia for each year since 1920?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer includes a statistical table, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. WATTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the amount of the goods that were paid for, and the amounts owing when payment was repudiated by the Russians?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Following is the reply promised:

The following statement shows the value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured exported from the United Kingdom and consigned to Russia (U.S.S.R.) during the years specified.

Year.
Produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom.
Imported Merchandise.




£
£


1921
…
894,000
97,000


1922
…
1,939,000
214,000


1923
…
1,698,000
382,000


1924
…
3,003,000
926,000


1925
…
5,031,000
2,276,000

Comparable particulars for 1920 cannot be given, as exports to the new Baltic States were included with exports to Russia in that year. Similar particulars for 1926 are not yet available.

Prior to 1st April, 1923, the particulars relate to the exports from Great Britain
and Ireland. From that date they relate to the exports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

TEXTILE MACHINERY.

Mr. KELLY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that representatives of the Russian textile syndicate recently visited this country with a view to purchasing textile machinery; and whether his Department took any steps to assist the Russian textile syndicate in placing orders for textile machinery in this country?

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. Member has in mind the mission to this country about 18 months ago of certain representatives of the textile syndicate. The Department of Overseas Trade on that occasion communicated to manufacturers advance information of the impending visit.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a delegation visiting this country much more recently than 18 months ago, and have the Board of Trade taken any steps to assist the engineering trade in securing those orders?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think the engineering trade requires any very direct assistance from the Board of Trade. If the engineering trade is invited to tender for orders, it is very competent to do so.

Mr. TAYLOR: Are the same courtesies extended to Russian commercial missions in this country as to other commercial missions by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. The Russians have the fullest possible facilities for placing orders in this country, and I only regret that they do not avail themselves more of those facilities.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that these people are supposed to be incapable of carrying out ordinary business transactions?

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that it is customary for the right hon. Gentleman's Department to extend certain courtesies and help to foreign commercial missions visiting this country, and will he say whether those facilities
to encourage business are put at the disposal of the Russians?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already said so. Of course, the hon. Gentleman puts his question in such a general manner that I am uncertain as to what he refers, but I repeat emphatically that the Russian Government have the fullest possible facilities for placing orders in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

WRAPPING PAPER.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average landed value of imported packing and wrapping paper since and before the imposition of the duty; and how the average landed value in 1936 compares with that of 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Duty was imposed on packing and wrapping paper, including tissue paper, exceeding 10 lbs., but not exceeding 90 Ibs. per ream, on 1st May, 1926. It is not possible to distinguish, for any period before that date, between the imports of paper which then became dutiable, and those which still remain free of duty. Consequently, it is necessary to give figures throughout relating to the total imports of packing and wrapping paper, including tissue paper. The average declared value (c.i.f. British port) of this paper imported into the United Kingdom in 1925 was £1.21 per cwt.; in January-April, 1926, £1.19; in May to December, 1926, £1.15; in the whole year 1926, £1.1.7, and in January-February, 1927, £1.14.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the drop in prices results from the foreign producers cutting prices to get over the barriers?.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It very well may be so. At any rate, there is a synchronisation.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is that responsible for the increase in unemployment in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My information goes to show that, apart from the inevitable increase in unemployment during the long coal stoppage, both employment and orders are considerably better.

APPLICATIONS.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any applications which have been made under the safeguarding of industries scheme are still under consideration by the Board with a view to the appointment of committees of inquiry, or whether those which have not already been so referred have now been rejected by the Department on prima facie grounds?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Two applications made under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure are still under consideration; such other applications as have not been referred to a committee have been rejected on prima facie grounds.

Mr. ALEXANDER: May we take it that British industries are now to be given some respite from these disturbances?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what the hon. Member means. It is open to any industry to make an application, and whether they do or do not is a matter for themselves.

GLOVES.

Mr. CROOKE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average c.i.f. value of imported leather gloves in 1926 as compared with the average value in 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The average declared value (c.i.f. British port) of gloves of leather and of fur imported into the United Kingdom was £1 15s. 3d. per dozen pairs in 1925, and £l 8s. 6d. in 1926.

Mr. GREENE: Does this not show that the foreigner is paying the duty?

Sir H. CROFT: Does it not show that in this case, as in all previous cases, the fact is that the price is lowered in order to compete in British markets?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

MERCANTILE MARINE (ASIATIC AND FOREIGN SEAMEN).

Mr. GIBBINS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of Asiatic and foreign seamen employed on British ships?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The first crews of all British vessels on the register of ports in the United Kingdom on 31st December, 1925, which were employed in trading in the course of the year 1925, were made up as follow: British, 166,059; foreign, 11,173; Lascars, 52,899. I hope to publish shortly figures relating to the position in 1926.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department doing anything to increase the proportion of British seamen?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

ITALY (GERMAN COAL).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information as to the price and delivery terms at which an order has been secured by Ruhr mines, in competition with England, for 400,000 tons of Rhenish Westphalian coal for Italy; whether previous orders have been placed in England; and, if so, what was the date of the last contract?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have seen a reference in the Press to this contract, but I have no official information of its terms or of previous contracts.

SUBVENTION CLAIMS (PROSECUTIONS).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the prosecution against certain colliery owners charged with obtaining falsely from the Secretary for Mines substantial sums of money during the subvention period by pretending larger sums of money had been paid in wages than were actually paid, any similar cases have been brought to his notice; and, if so, what action is being taken?

Colonel LANE FOX: Prosecutions have been instituted in four cases. Two of the persons concerned have been convicted and two are awaiting trial. If any other similar cases are disclosed, similar action will be taken.

Colonel DAY: Can the Minister say how much the Government have been defrauded of in these four cases?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. PALING: Does this mean that the workmen in question have received less wages than they ought, to receive?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir; it means that an undue amount of subsidy was claimed.

ACCIDENT FUNDS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there are any funds still in existence which were raised for the relief of miners and dependants involved in mining disasters previous to those which recently occurred at Ebbw Vale and Bilsthorpe; if so, can be give particulars of the present state of these funds and whether any disbursements are still being made from them; and will he consider making any balance available for the relief of distress caused by recent disasters?

Colonel LANE FOX: The latest information in my possession about Colliery Accident Funds is contained in a Parliamentary Paper issued on the 30th July, 1925, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. I have no power to act as suggested in the last part of the question.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the average number of hours worked underground by coal miners in this country during the latest week for which figures are available; and what is the average number of hours worked underground by coal miners in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Upper Silesia, respectively?

Colonel LANE FOX: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon on the 15th March. In reply to the second part, I would refer him to page 170 of the Royal Commission's Report.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any European Governments have declared their intention of requiring the coal miners to work longer hours underground?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. European countries do not come under my Department.

Mr. PALING: Are the mineowners not using the argument in Poland that Great Britain has compelled the miners to work longer hours?

MINERS (TRANSFER).

Mr. TINKER: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines when he will be able to place upon the Table of the House his proposals for securing the transfer of unemployed miners from one district to another and for giving such miners the first chance of obtaining colliery employment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend cannot make any statement till he has received the replies of the various organisations to which proposals were communicated on 18th March.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what has caused the delay?

Mr. BETTERTON: The delay, I am afraid, has been with the organisations to whom we have addressed our proposals. We have received acknowledgments from them, but we have as yet had no substantive answers.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say which organisations have replied and which have not?

Mr. BETTERTON: They have all acknowledged the proposals of my right hon. Friend, but none has given a substantive reply.

PIT-HEAD BATHS.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines in how many places pit-head baths for miners have been erected; and whether any have been provided in Scotland?

Colonel LANE FOX: Excluding slipper baths, plunge baths, swimming baths and baths provided for officials only, 31 pithead bath installations had been completed by the end of 1926, and four were in course of construction. Three of the completed installations are in Scotland.

Sir A. SPROT: Have any of these baths been provided since the passing of the Mining Industry Act of last year?

Colonel LANE FOX: I understand there are no schemes completed under the Act. The Welfare Committee have started experimental sets of baths, but they have not actually developed their ideas.

Mr. PALING: Does that mean that, despite the extra help given under the Act passed last year, no applications have been made?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman need not think anything of that sort.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Is it not a fact that in getting these estimates and making inquiries about the most approved type of pithead baths the Welfare Committee are now inquiring abroad so as to get the fullest and best possible information?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. I understand the Welfare Committee are working hard to develop the very best scheme they can for the benefit of all concerned, and that is the reason why there has been delay.

Mr. MAXTON: In reply to a previous supplementary question, did the right hon. Gentleman not say that he had nothing to do with other countries and that they did not come under his Department, and he is now answering a question about America?

Colonel LANE FOX: I was answering a question about the work and the suggestions of the Miners' Welfare Committee, and if the hon. Member had listened to my answers he would have known that.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that it is the colliery owners who will have to build the baths rather than the Welfare Committee, and have they taken any steps in that direction?

Colonel LANE FOX: The whole scheme is under the Welfare Committee, and I think it is very fortunate that it is.

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many colliery companies have taken steps up to the present time?

UNEMPLOYMENT, FIFE.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that there are 6,000 totally unemployed miners in the county of Fife; that many of the mines are working little more than half-time; and if he has any information showing to what extent the longer working day has contributed to this state of affairs?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member has overstated the number of men unemployed, but I am aware that both employment and output in the coal mines of Fife during the present year have been less than in the corresponding period of last year. I have no reason to suppose that a larger output could have been marketed or more men found employment if the hours had been shorter and the costs of production higher.

Mr. WATSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I got these figures from the Ministry of Labour a few days ago?

PIT PONIES.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can provide the figures showing the total numbers of horses and ponies employed underground in mines at the end of January, 1927; how many animals are being worked on one shift per day, two shifts per day and three shifts per day; and the numbers employed for six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve or more shifts per week since work was renewed after the national stoppage?

Colonel LANE FOX: I regret that the information is not available. The number of pit ponies employed underground at the end of 1926 was 56,745.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does the Department get any particulars at all as to conditions underground?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, but if we have to make an application to every individual colliery it would devolve a lot of work on people who are wanted for other things.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does the Minister not know that horses and ponies are employed regularly on more than one shift a day?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. The last return we had was some time ago but it gives information which is very useful and more or less up to date. That Report shows that in a number of cases ponies were working more than one shift per day, but certainly not in the majority of cases.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the Department not got inspectors to examine the pit ponies for the purpose of supplying the kind of information for which we are asking?

Colonel LANE FOX: Of course we have inspectors and they examine the pit ponies. I get their reports regularly but a general report for the whole coalfield would be a very different matter.

GRADING.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has made any investigation of the system prevailing in Germany in which coal is graded on the basis of quality and calorific value; whether he will consider the possibility of introducing into this country a grading system on that basis or on the basis of the pit-head price; and whether he is aware that, failing any such system of grading, the household consumer has no certain protection against being sold inferior coal at superior prices?

Colonel LANE FOX: This subject is dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission, which suggests that it is one which could with advantage be taken up by the industry itself. I am not satisfied that the Government could usefully take the initiative in the matter. No special investigation into the German system has been made by my Department.

HOOK ANTHRACITE COLLIERY COMPANY.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal subvention paid to the Hook Anthracite Colliery Company, Pembrokeshire?

Colonel LANE FOX: No subvention was claimed by or paid to this colliery.

RAILWAY WAGONS, POTTERIES.

Mr. MacLAREN: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is; aware that much
unemployment is caused to the miners in the Potteries district owing to the lack of empty railway wagons; and if he will approach the local railway company with a view to their making such arrangements as will meet the requirements of this mines?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not aware that there is at present a lack of empty railway wagons in the Potteries district. The railway company concerned inform me that they know of no difficulty in this respect, and that recently, indeed, empty wagons have been worked away because they were surplus to requirements. If the hon. Member has any specific instance in mind where difficulty is still occurring, and will communicate with me, I will make further inquiries.

ROYALTIES (STATE OWNERSHIP).

Mr. WHITELEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken for the State ownership of mineral royalties, as recommended by the Samuel Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The practical advantages claimed for this proposal by its advocates have been secured in another way by the enlargement of the powers of the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mining Industry Act passed last Session; and in any case the present financial condition of the country makes it impossible to contemplate the creation of fresh debt and the increase in the staffs of Government Departments that this gigantic transaction would necessitate.

Mr. BECKETT: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what use has been made of the powers that were given to the Commission last year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

ROYAL COMMISSION (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to his plans for carrying out the, proposals of the Samuel Coal Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have stated on many occasions, the question of putting into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission is
primarily and mainly for the industry itself. So far as it rested with the Government to make them effective, there are, I think, only two on which we have not already taken action. These are the recommendations that the State should purchase the property in minerals and that local authorities should be given statutory power to trade in coal. On those matters I have no further statement to make.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask how much this Commission cost the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (BONUS CLAIMS).

Mr. SNELL: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of claims outstanding in his Department arising out of the Sutton v. Rex and subsequent judgments; the circumstances which are responsible for the non-payment in each case, if any; the length of time during which the claim, if any, has been in his Department; and when it is anticipated that all outstanding claims, if any, will have been dealt with?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): As regards the first part of the question, it is impossible to say how many of the claims in respect of balance of civil pay received by the War Office since the Sutton judgment arise out of that and subsequent judgments, but the number of outstanding claims, out of some 3,000 received, is 19. As regards the third part of the question, the outstanding claims were received at dates varying from February, 1925, to March, 1927. As regards the second and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the last part of the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) on 30th March.

CIVIL SERVICE (NEW ENTRANTS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reason why new entrants are being admitted by examination to the Civil Service when there are already so many temporary employes, and when there is a general move-
ment for the reduction, and not the increase, of the numbers in the service?

Mr. McNEILL: Whilst full consideration is given, on the occurrence of vacancies, to the claims of persons already employed in the Civil Service, it is essential in the public interest that appointments to the established Civil Service should be made from time to time by open competition. So far as temporary clerks are concerned, repeated opportunities have been provided to enable them to qualify, by limited competition, for advancement to established posts, and during the last nine years no fewer than 22,000 appointments have been so made. As regards reduction of numbers, the requirements of each Department are under 'constant review, both in connection with the filling of vacancies and otherwise.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to cut down the staffs in Government Departments and thus effect the economies which all supporters of the Government in the House are so anxious to see and are working so hard to accomplish?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (CLERICAL GRADES).

Mr. TOWNEND: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of officers in the under-mentioned grades serving in the Customs and Excise Department as at 1st March, 1927, higher clerical officers (men), higher clerical officers (women), clerical officers (men), clerical officers (women), higher grade clerks (men), Departmental clerical officers (men), Departmental clerical officers (women), P-class clerks, temporary male clerks, typing grade (permanent), writing assistants; and the allocation of such officers as between Secretary's, Accountant and Comptroller-General's statistical, and collectors' offices, respectively?

Mr. McNEILL: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The particulars requested are given in the subjoined table as at 1st January, 1927, which is the latest date for which they are available.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.


Number of officers in the undermentioned grades serving on 1st
January, 1927.


Grade.
Headquarters.
Ex-Headquarters.



Secretaries' Office Group.
Accountant and Comptroller General's Office.
Statistical Office.
Collections.
Total.


Higher Clerical Officers (Men)
12
34
21
—
67


Higher Clerical Officers (Women).
—
1
—
—
1


Clerical Officers (Men)
115
249
163
—
527


Clerical Officers (Women)
3
25
2
—
30


Clerks, Higher Grade, Departmental Class (Men)
—
—
—
58
58


Clerks, Departmental Class (Men).
—
—
—
877
877


Clerks, Departmental Class (Women).
—
—
—
49
49


"P" Class Clerks
25
30
19
273
347


Temporary Male Clerks
17
35
18
283
353


Shorthand Typists
7
—
—
1
8


Typists
20
—
—
3
23


Writing Assistants
12
—
—
21
33

NOTE.—The fifth column of the table includes officers serving not only in Collectors' Offices, but also in Sub-Offices and Stations, and has been beaded "Collections" accordingly.

A number of posts of Clerk, Higher Grade, Departmenal Class, are blocked by Officers of Customs and Excise and the number 58 shown in the fifth column is exclusive of these Officers.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture! what reduction in the Ministry's staff has resulted from the repeal of Sections 1 to 21 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908; what number of district commissioners and sub-commissioners are now required in place of the eight small holdings commissioners appointed under the Small Holdings Act, 1908; and what duties they perform which were not performed by the small holdings commissioners and which have now ceased by reason of the passing of the Small Holdings Act, 1926?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The District Land Commissioners employed by the Ministry are still engaged to a large extent on work connected with the valuation which is being made in accordance with the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment Act, 1925. This work will not be completed for several months. As soon as practicable, the Ministry proposes to review the staffing of its Land Division; but I would remind the hon. Member that, as
I explained when the Act of last Session was before the House, almost the whole of the Sections of the Act of 1908 to which he refers were re-enacted in the Act of 1926, with the exception of the power of the Minister to act in default, which power was only once exercised during the years 1908–1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

COLONELS (FULL PAY).

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the number of officers on full pay as colonels is now greater or less than the pre-War number; if greater, what is the excess; and to what is it due, having regard to the fact that the present strength of the Army is less than the pre-War strength?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of officers in receipt of full pay as colonels from Army Funds is 265 as compared with 264 before the War, i.e., one more. The additional numbers necessitated by having troops on the
Rhine and at Shanghai, and by the increased requirements of schools and technical establishments, have been met by reductions elsewhere.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Are we to assume that this number will be reduced when the troops come back from the Rhine?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As soon as the occasion presents itself, the number will be reduced.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider also the question of making a reduction in the Intelligence Department, in view of what happened at Paschaendale?

OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS, SHEFFIELD.

Major-General Sir FREDERICK SYKES: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds upon which the officers training corps at King Edward VII School, Sheffield, has been disbanded?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: A communication has been received from the headmaster to the effect that the Higher Education Committee of Sheffield had decided that the contingent should be discontinued and its activities should cease at the end of the Easter term on the grounds that military forms of teaching to boys in schools are wrong. The Director of Education of the Sheffield County Borough Council has been asked to communicate direct with the War Office on the subject. In the meantime I have not agreed to the disbandment of the contingent.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now taking charge of the education system, as well as of the War Office?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Oh, no. The hon. Gentleman will be wrong in thinking that. I have asked the Higher Education Committee to communicate with me if they wish this unit to be disbanded, and, in the meantime, I am not disbanding it. If they do wish it to be disbanded, I have no power to cause it to be continued, and it would be disbanded. Its place would be taken very quickly by another applicant for recognition.

WAR OFFICE EMPLOYÉS, BRAMLEY (HOUSING).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a resolution recently passed by the Bradfield Rural District Council as to the shortage of housing accommodation for the rural inhabitants owing to War Office employes at the Army-Ordnance depot at Bramley crowding them out; and whether he will make adequate provision for the housing of all the War Office employés at this depot or make a grant to the council to build houses for these Government employés?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. But as I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend on 10th March last, the housing of the civilian population is primarily a matter for the local civil authorities, and while Government quarters have been provided at Bramley for certain civilian employés whose duties are of such a nature that they must live in close proximity to their work, I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect of further assistance in this direction from Army Funds.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right that a big Government Department should put the onus of finding houses for their employés on the poor ratepayers of these rural districts, and will he consider making a change in his policy?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a question of which Government Department should interest itself in the matter. I cannot do the work of another Government Department.

Major GLYN: Did not the Admiralty make arrangements at Devonport?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, and I think it quite possible that at Bramley a somewhat similar arrangement can be made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a different form of arrangements has been made to help employés.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (BOUNTY ABOLITION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has received
from Territorial associations any indications that the abolition of the bounty on re-engagement will be prejudicial to the maintenance of the strength of the various Territorial regiments?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have received such representations, but I hope that the introduction of a "proficiency grant," which I announced last Tuesday, will go far to remove the objections urged by associations to the abolition of the bounty.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage of land under cultivation in Scotland in 1906 and the number of persons returned as being employed on the land, with similar figures for 1926 or the latest year for which figures are available?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I have been asked to reply. No returns were made in the year 1906 of the number of persons employed on the land and the nearest year for which such returns are available is 1908. In 1908 the total area under crop and permanent grass was 4,863,500 acres. In 1926 the corresponding figure was 4,693,200 acres. In 1908 there were 119,000 permanent male workers and 13,000 temporary male workers employed in agriculture. In 1926 the corresponding numbers were 83,300 and 13,000. Occupiers of holdings are excluded in both years. Comparable figures for the years 1908 and 1926 are not available with respect to female workers.

SCARISTAVEG FARM, SOUTH HARRIS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any information about the reported arrest and imprisonment of five ex-servicemen at Scaristaveg, South Harris, whether these men had been promised holdings on part of the farm of Scaristaveg, whether these men are not in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit or any relief from any public source, what provision is meantime being made for their wives and families and what steps he can take to expedite the provision of holdings in South Harris —which is in the Hebrides?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend only brought this question to my notice an hour ago. All I can do is to say that I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the matter at once and will have inquiries made. I did see in the paper of the conviction and sentence of these men last week.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from that reply, which is perfectly true, are these women and children to starve until the right hon. Gentleman inquires into this business? The Lord Advocate is conversant with the whole of this business. These five men were promised this land, which they have taken, and the crime that they have committed, as stated in the Court, was that they went to work there, and now they have been thrown into prison.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the urgency of this question of the care of the men's wives and families, whether he will take steps to expedite the inquiry, and if this question is repeated in two days' time, will he give us a report on what has transpired?

Mr. SULLIVAN: Before the Lord Advocate replies, may I ask whether he wants the House to assume that these men have been arrested and imprisoned without his knowledge?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. I would not ask the House to do that at all. There is no doubt about the fact of their conviction and sentence to imprisonment last week. With regard to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), he can put a question down and I will see that he gets an answer.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Lord Advocate state that this prosecution was initiated by his Department?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir; I did not say so.

Mr. MAXTON: On whose authority has it been initiated?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That requires notice.

Mr. MAXTON: The Lord Advocate says that he requires notice of a question whether he has done a certain thing or whether an illegal thing has been done.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not included in the notice of the question which was given to me. I think that question should be put down in the ordinary way on the Order Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no knowledge who initiated the prosecution in Scotland, or that he cannot answer the question without notice. As he is the person responsible for initiating prosecutions, are we to understand that this prosecution has been initiated without any authority whatever?

Mr. SPEAKER: All that I was saying was that that question should be asked in the ordinary way.

FUEL RESEARCH.

Mr. POTTS: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the amount spent by his Department upon research into new methods for the utilisation of coal within the last full year for which figures are available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend has been asked to answer this question, which presumably refers to the work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; research work on the utilisation of coal is not carried out by the Mines Department. The net amount spent by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on fuel research during the financial year 1926–26 was £76,547 and during 1926–27 about £88,000.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting aside a definite sum for research into the uses of oil for power production?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to direct that a definite sum should be set aside for the purposes indicated, since in these matters the Lord President is advised from time to time by his Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. G. PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be
better to encourage the use of Somerset coal rather than Russian oil?

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state, as a result of the experiments of the Fuel Research Board, the average amount of fuel oil, lubricating oil, motor spirit, sulphate of ammonia and smokeless fuel, respectively, that can be obtained, according to the latest methods of treatment, from one ton of coal?

Mr. MARDY JONES: 89.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will provide a list of the various by-products obtained from coal as a result of the experiments of the Fuel Research Board, the commercial values of such by-products, respectively, and the variation in the commercial value, in each case, according to the quality of coal used?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The products obtained from a ton of coal by the latest experimental treatment vary according to the process adopted and the coal used. For further information my right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Members to recent Annual Reports of the Fuel Research Board, and to the reports on tests of proprietary plants made by the Director of Fuel Research. It is impossible to give reliable commercial values for the by-products until they have been available for purchase in large quantities over an extended period.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any prospect of this method of the utilisation of coal becoming a commercial proposition in the near future?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think it is impossible at the moment to give an answer.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Education the amount of large coal and small coal used in the experiments of the Fuel Research Board during the last year for which figures are available?

Mr. EVAN DAVIES: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many tons of coal are used for experimental purposes per month by the Fuel Research Board?

Duchess of ATHOLL: During 1926 the coal used amounted to






Tons.


Nuts
…
…
…
1,541


Run of Mine
…
…
…
2,501


Smalls
…
…
…
518


The run of mine coal consists of large and small in about equal proportions. It is sometimes used as received and sometimes screened, according to the investigation in progress.

STONE WORKERS (SILICOSIS).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give, for the last three years for which statistics are available, the number of cases of silicosis reported among stone workers; the number of deaths from this disease; the number of cases which developed pulmonary tuberculosis and died there from; and the kinds of stone which proved to be most liable to produce silicosis among stone workers?

Colonel LANE FOX: Silicosis is not in general a disease which is required to be reported, and the detailed information asked for is, therefore, not available, but it may be stated that the kinds of stone most liable to produce silicosis are the more highly silicious sandstones and granite. More information will be available on this point when I have the results of a medical inquiry into the dust danger among workers in sandstone, which has been undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in which my Department is collaborating.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to obtain that Report?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir.

Mr. PALING: In view of the increase in the number of cases of silicosis, is there any prospect of it being scheduled as an industrial disease?

Colonel LANE FOX: Clearly, we must have the Report before we can take any action of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

CRUISING TAXICABS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received from the London Traffic
Advisory Committee a Report on crawling taximeter cabs; what is its nature; and whether he intends to publish it?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have to-day received a Report from the London Traffic Advisory Committee on cruising taximeter cabs, but I have not yet had an opportunity of considering it.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman look after the crawling horse wagons which hold up such a lot of this traffic?

Captain BRASS: Could my right hon. Friend consult with the Home Secretary with the object of reducing taxi-cab fares, and in that way reduce the number of unemployed and crawling taxis?

Colonel ASHLEY: That does not arise.

LICENCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give an estimate of the number of motor vehicles of all kinds now on the roads of Great Britain by the number of motor licences current; and if he has made any estimate of the probable increase in the number of motor vehicles during the present year?

Colonel ASHLEY: The maximum number of motor vehicle licences current during the year 1926 was about 1,730,000, and this is, perhaps, the best estimate I can give in answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question. The probable increase during the present year may be put down at about 150,000.

ROUNDABOUT SYSTEM.

Major G. DAVIES: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents which have occurred to pedestrians at places where the gyratory system of traffic has been introduced during the periods for three months prior to and three months subsequent to the introduction of the system at each point?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report by the London Traffic Advisory Committee on Street Accidents in Greater London, and, in particular, to Table
XXI on page 27 of that Report, which gives a comparative summary of the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents at places where the "roundabout" system of traffic working has been put into operation. Copies of the Report are available at the Vote Office.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the roundabout system is working very satisfactorily?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I think it is working, on the whole, very satisfactorily. Although there has been somewhat of an increase in the non-fatal accidents where it has been put into operation, the number of fatal accidents has been very much reduced.

Mr. REMER: Has the Minister's attention been called to the state of Parliament Square, where it is practically impossible to cross the street, even at the places which are marked?

Colonel ASHLEY: I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend as to that. If he will follow the notices, I think he will get across with perfect safety.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a rule it is only Members of this House who are wearing silk hats who get these special facilities?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NIGHT RAILWAY TRAFFIC, HULL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the closing of the Hull and Barnsley section of the London and North Eastern Railway between Hull and Cudworth to all traffic between 10 at night and 6 in the morning; if he is aware that there is congestion the next day owing to overnight goods arriving at Cudworth and not being forwarded till the next morning, with the result that the Midland Railway Company cannot deal with them fast enough, and that on 20th March last, Sunday, there was an accumulation of 650 wagons from the previous weekdays, partly caused by this closing of the Hull and Barnsley line during the night hours; and whether, in view of the admitted shortage of wagons in Hull, he will look into this
aspect of the problem in connection with the admitted grievance of the Hull merchants?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that this section of line is closed each night, as stated in the question. I am, however, assured by the railway company concerned that this closing has no effect on the supply of wagons at Hull. I am also informed that the shortage of wagons at Hull, and the congestion at Cudworth, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, both ceased some time ago.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no possibility of this line being opened again at night? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into that aspect of the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I am informed, the shortage of wagons at Hull and the congestion at Cudworth had nothing to do with the closing of the line, and I do not think that that is really a material factor.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular section of the railway is a goods line, and has been used for years almost only as a goods line; and is that not likely to affect the congestion?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed that it is not. I can only take the answer that has been sent to me.

Mr. MAC KINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it?

Major CARVER: Is my right hon. Friend aware thai negotiations are proceeding between the railway company and the Hull Chamber of Commerce, and would it be wise for the Ministry to interfere until that investigation has taken place?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is one of the reasons why I am taking no action, in order to see whether these negotiations cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

THAMES BRIDGES.

Sir F. HALL: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the offer of assistance from the Road Fund to the London County Council of a sum of approximately £1,000,000 a year, in connection with the carrying out of the Waterloo
Bridge and Charing Cross Bridge schemes, recommended by the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic, is inclusive of all street widening and improvement schemes which are being, or are proposed to be, carried out by the council in co-operation with the Minister of Transport; and if he will state what is the extent of the assistance already being rendered or promised in connection with street widening and bridge schemes other than those relating to the new Charing Cross Bridge and the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Greenwich, from which it will be seen that the offer of financial assistance: by the Government, limited to a sum which, upon the average of a series of years, will not exceed £1,000,000 a year, relates to the whole of the schemes recommended by the Royal Commission (including the Victoria Dock Road scheme) and not only to those for which the London County Council are or would be responsible. This does not preclude such additional moneys as the resources of the Road Fund permit from being made available for other street improvements as may be found to be practicable apart from Classification grants and the arterial road programme now being carried out. In reply to the last part of the question, grants have been indicated to various, schemes, such as the widening of Kensington High Street, but I am unable to give an exhaustive list at the present time as several schemes are the subject of negotiations which are not concluded.

Sir F. HALL: Will there be an excess over and above the £400,000 granted at the present time, and has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement of the Chairman of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council that if there is a considerable increase it will be impossible for the general improvements to be carried on for some years if the construction of Charing Cross Bridge is to be proceeded with, and that if there is an excess the county council will not be able to carry out the work contemplated by the Royal Commission?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his leisure will study the subject he will get the information in the second part of the answer.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE.

Mr. SPOOR: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what are the functions of the officers employed on the Imperial Defence Committee; and whether they are exclusively in the service of this Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Their functions are to carry out all the secretarial duties of the Committee and its Subcommittees. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, with the exception of the secretary, who is also Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.

Mr. SPOOR: Are we to understand that their functions are purely of a technical character—that they give technical advice to the Committee but have really no executive power? Are they experts advising the Committee, or are they actually on the Committee, taking part in all its deliberations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I took the right hon. Gentleman to mean, by "the officers employed," those in a secretarial capacity. I am not quite clear, after what he has said. I think there is some confusion in his mind, which makes it all the more desirable that we should have a Debate on this subject, and I wish hon. Members opposite would put it down some day.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. ROBINSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of reducing the tax on beer?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Announcements of remissions of taxation are usually reserved for the Budget Statement.

PREMIUM BOND LOANS.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which
Europeans nations have, subsequent to the year 1918, offered premium Bond Loans for subscription?

Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as the information at my disposal shows, the following Europeans nations have, subsequent to 1918, issued premium Bond Loans, that is to say, loans providing for a limited number of prizes to be awarded by lot:

Belgium.
Czechoslovakia.
Estonia.
France.
Germany.
Greece.
Italy.
Poland.
Sweden.
Yugo-Slavia.
Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

CHEQUES (STAMPS).

Sir F. NELSON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of revenue derived from stamps on cheques during the financial years 1913–14 and 1925–26, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The net receipt in Great Britain of stamp duty from cheques was, for the year 1913–14, £1,225,200, and for the year 1925–26, £3,421,684.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revenue would be greatly increased if stamps on all receipts were insisted upon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is another question.

MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AND EXCISE DUTIES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount, under the principal heads, received by way of special miscellaneous receipts during the financial year ended 31st March, 1927?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget Statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount, under the principal heads, received by way of ordinary miscellaneous receipts during the financial year ended 31st March, 1927?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget Statement.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts from Excise duties during the financial year ended 31st March, 1927, apart from special receipts arising from the reduction in the period of credit allowed to the brewers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot think of any variant of the words I have just used.

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND CONVERSION.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of inflation of the face value of the National Debt due to the issue of new loans and conversion loans at a discount; and whether he will favourably consider issuing future loans or conversions at a figure not appreciably below par?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will find an analysis of the increase in the nominal debt due to the issue of loans at a discount since 1920 in the Colwyn Report on Debt and Taxation (Command Paper 2800). In reply to the last part of the question all relevant considerations are very carefully weighed before any issue is made.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the statement made by the Financial Secretary on the 23rd February, that the Treasury were averse to issuing loans at a considerable discount?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I will certainly bear it in mind, and will take an opportunity of refreshing my information on the subject.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Sir F. SANDERSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total arrears of interest on the debt to the United States of America which was capitalised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Interest in arrear for the period from April, 1919, to December, 1922, amounting to $529,309,000, was capitalised by the Debt Funding Agreement of 1923. Interest amounting to
$1233,356,000 had, prior to April, 1919, been included in the capital debt. The total interest capitalised was, therefore, $762,665,000, or approximately £157 millions sterling.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 58 and 59.
asked the Chancellor of the. Exchequer (1) if his attention has been called to the fact that in the various Votes of Class 5 of the Civil Estimates 12 of the sub-heads, Salaries, Wages, and Allowances, show an increase this year and only five a decrease; and whether he will indicate what steps he is taking to reduce the cost of the administration of the country;
(2) if his attention has been called to the fact that in Class 6 of the Civil Estimates 22 of the sub-heads, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, in the various Votes show an increase this year and only nine a decrease; and whether he is taking every possible step to reduce the actual cost of the administration of this country by the Civil Service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am fully aware of the variations on the sub-heads relating to salaries, wages and allowances in the Estimates referred to. The whole question of the cost of administration is receiving the continuous attention of His Majesty's Government. I might perhaps add that taking the classes of the Civil Estimates for 1927 as a whole, five show a net increase and four a net decrease on the sub-heads for salaries, wages and allowances, in comparison with the corresponding Estimates for the last financial year; and that the net increase on these sub-heads over the whole field of the Civil Estimates is approximately £50,000. The increased staff required for the Contributory Pensions Act alone is far more than sufficient to account for this increase.

FRANCE, GERMANY AND ITALY (BUDGET EXPENDITURE).

Sir F. NELSON: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the total budget expenditures of France, Germany and Italy, respectively, for the last three years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the statement show the relationship between the relative expenditure in those countries so as to make the statement comparative?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not quite sure; I think not.

Following is the statement:


Budget Expenditures.


France:










Francs.


1924
…
…
…
41,887,000,000


1925
…
…
…
38,094,000,000


1926
…
…
…
39,349,000,000


Italy:










Lire.


1924–1925
…
…
…
19,366,000,000


1925–1926
…
…
…
18,901,000,000


1926–1927
…
…
…
19,377,000,000


Germany:










Reichsmarks.


1924–1925
…
…
…
7,768,000,000


1925–1926
…
…
…
8,141,000,000


1926–1927
…
…
…
8,532,000,000

STREET ACCIDENTS, MANCHESTER.

Mr. TOWNEND: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the circumstances surrounding the serious accident on 25th March, whilst on duty, to a point-cleaner employed by the tramways department of the Manchester Corporation: and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to reduce the risks run in such cases?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received a report from the Manchester Corporation in regard to this accident, and am making some further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

STAMP SELLING MACHINES.

Colonel DAY: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General the cost to the Post Office of each individual stamp selling machine that is used by the Post Office and where these machines are made?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell Thomson): The cost is £l6 apiece, exclusive of installation costs which vary according to circumstances. The machines are made at Willesden.

LETTER COLLECTION AND DELIVERY, GORTON.

Mr. COMPTON: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General if representation has been made to his Department with reference to the delivery and collection of letters in the Gorton district of Manchester; if he is aware that the facilities to-day are exactly similar to those in operation prior to the amalgamation of Gorton with the city 16 years ago; and, in view of the large number of new houses recently erected in this district, if he will take steps to see that this district is not less favourably treated than other parts of the city further removed from the general post office in the centre of the city?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Representations on this subject have been received locally. The postal facilities at Gorton compare favourably with those in operation in similar districts on the outskirts of the city. I am afraid that I could not justify the considerable expense which would be necessary to extend to these surburban areas all the facilities provided in the Manchester central area. The new building developments in Gorton have been kept under observation, and a new sub-post office will shortly be opened to meet the growing needs of the locality.

Mr. COMPTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that four collections and three deliveries on one side of the road is at all favourable compared with the other side where there are nine collections and four deliveries? Will he also bear in mind that Gorton is not a suburb of Manchester but part of it?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of the local circumstances, but there must be a boundary drawn somewhere for a town area and a suburb.

Mr. COMPTON: Draw it outside Gorton.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MAILS).

Sir ROBERT LYNN: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the British or Free State Government will be responsible for the safety of mails during their transit through Free State territory?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Post Office will pay compensation for loss or damage of postal packets
in transit between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the limits and under the conditions applicable to the inland postal service; and the question of the liability of the Free State Post Office depends upon the circumstances of each case.

Sir R. LYNN: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the mails sent to Northern Ireland via Holyhead and Dublin will be handled in the Free State by British or Free State postal officials?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer is "By neither." The contract with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway for the steamer service provides that the mails shall be transferred by the railway company's servants from the ship into the train. There will be no further handling in the Free State.

Sir R. LYNN: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the mails from Great Britain to Northern Ireland sent via Stranraer reach Belfast about the same time as those dispatched via Holyhead and Dublin, he will consider the advisability of adhering to the Stranraer route?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has already stated that after prolonged conferences with the railway authorities his Government decided to request that the Holyhead route should be reverted to for the present because of the anticipated benefit, not so much to the mails from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as to those from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. These mails should in future connect with the first instead of the second delivery in Central London.

Sir R. LYNN: Is the application for a temporary service via Holyhead, and can the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the service via Fleetwood and Stranraer?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I understand the Government of Northern Ireland were in conference with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and considered not only the alternative to Stranraer but several other alternatives suggested as well.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. AMMON: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General the names of the members of the
Post Office Advisory Committee; whether there has been any change in the personnel during the past 12 months; how many times has the Committee met during the past 12 months; and the date of the last meeting?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information which he requires in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The names of the members of the Council are as follow:

Sir Arthur Balfour, K.B.E., J.P.
*Sir C. C. Barrie, K.B.E.
Mr. J. Cairns.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Churchman, Bart., M.P.
Colonel Sir G. Courthope, Bart., M.C., M.P.
The Right Hon. The Lord Daryngton.
Mr. W. L. Hichens.
Sir George Lawson Johnston, K.B.E.
*The Right Hon. The Earl of Lucan, K.B.E., C.B.
Sir S. Machin, J.P.
Sir E. Manville, M.Inst.E.E.
Mr. E. Holland Martin, C.B.
Lieut.-Colonel Rouse Orlebar.
*Mr. Waldron Smithers, M.P.
Mr. J. Walter.

*=New Member.

The Council met twice during 1926 and its last meeting was held on 15th December, 1926.

CABLE LAYING, TAUNTON.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inconvenience and danger to life has been caused by one of his contractors in leaving large holes unprotected for several days at a time in the laying of cables in the streets and market place of Taunton; and if he will take such steps as he may deem necessary to safeguard the public from such further nuisance and have inserted in his contracts a clause to protect local authorities from expenditure occasioned by the careless reinstatement of pavements removed by his contractors?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: According to my information, all proper steps are being taken by the contractors to protect the public from inconvenience and risk of injury. It is the practice to
include a clause in these contracts to cover the point raised in the final sentence of the question.

BROADCASTING, DUNDEE STATION.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any complaints from owners of wireless sets in Arbroath regarding difficulties of listening in to the programmes of the Dundee broadcasting station since the recent alterations in the wave length; whether he is satisfied with the working of the wave meter; and if inquiries will be made with a view to removing ground of complaint?

SirW. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have received no such complaints, but I have no doubt the British Broadcasting Corporation will be ready to investigate the matter if the complainants bring their difficulties to its notice.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that the Postmaster-General is not responsible in this House for complaints against the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No. I have already told the House before the Charter was granted to the Broadcasting Corporation that the day to day working of the service is a matter for the Corporation and not for me.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the only place in which complaints can be ventilated is this House, and if the Postmaster-General declines to answer questions, what other redress have the public got?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

METAL LIMBS.

Colonel DAY: 80.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications that have been refused by his Department for light metal limbs for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and the number of wooden legs supplied on the Ministry's order in their stead?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have no record of
the number of cases in which the application of a pensioner for a specific type of limb has been refused. As I have before stated, whatever type of limb is medically prescribed is supplied.

Colonel DAY: How much has the Department saved by the supply of wooden instead of metal limbs?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I must have notice of that question.

NEED PENSION (WIDOW'S RE-MARRIAGE).

Sir W. de FRECE: 81.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is the practice of his Department in all cases where a widow, receiving a need pension for her son killed in the Great War, marries an elderly man in receipt of an old age pension, automatically to cancel the grant of such pension; and whether his Department will reconsider this in view of the fact that her need in this new matrimonial alliance may be as great as ever?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is, and always has been, a definite provision of the Royal Warrants that a pension to a female dependant shall cease on her marriage or remarriage, and the position is clearly intimated on the Identity Certificate or ring paper issued to the pensioner. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to recommend a departure from this provision.

Sir W. de FRECE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman specify the Regulation under which action is taken?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I can find out. I cannot carry it in my head.

SMALL HOLDINGS, WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

Mr. RILEY: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of land acquired by the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council under the Small Holding Act, 1908, and the Land Settlement Act, 1919, respectively; the number of tenants settled under each Act; and the percentage of failures in both cases?

Mr. GUINNESS: The area of land acquired by the West Riding County Council under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, was 5,466 acres, and
the number of tenants settled thereon was 200. The area acquired under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, was 8,758 acres, on which 475 tenants were settled. Of the total of 675 holdings, 140 have since been sold, in most cases to the small holding tenants. The percentage of failures on self-supporting holdings is under 3 per cent., while that of tenants of cottage holdings and of small plots is under 6 per cent.

CLUBS (ALCOHOLIC LIQUTOR RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. ROBINSON: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the desirability of taking action to remove the restrictions on the hours during which alcoholic liquors may be supplied in clubs?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It has already been announced that the Government cannot consider action on this or any other item of the licensing question until after they are in possession of the Report of the Committee over which Lord Southborough presides.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Southborough Report will be issued?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Committee are already considering the Report, which is in draft, and I hope to get It very shortly.

HYMNS (COPYRIGHT).

Mr. ROBINSON: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the difficulty experienced by Sunday schools desiring to print their own hymnals in ascertaining whether or not a hymn is copyright, he will introduce legislation requiring that in all cases of publication of copyright hymns the word copy right shall be printed at the foot of the hymn?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: I have been asked to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Home Secretary!"] On this question of copyright, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may have preconceived views. No, Sir. The suggested amendment of the law would not, I am
afraid, meet the difficulty, as it would give no indication of the duration of the copyright.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

SITUATION IN CHINA.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an opportunity to discuss the situation which has arisen in China?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a little difficult at this stage of business to make an arrangement, but if such a discussion would be generally desired by the House, as I imagine it would be, I could find time by giving to-morrow afternoon, on which day we had put down the Second Heading of the Landlord and Tenant Bill,, provided that the House would enable me to get the Second Beading of that Bill, as originally intended, by Thursday night. I know that a number of hon. Members are interested in the provisions of that Bill; but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be convenient and would help us in every way possible to get the Second Beading of the Bill on that evening, to-morrow would be the most convenient time for the Debate. I might just say that to-morrow would be a more convenient date for the Foreign Secretary, as he has an engagement for Thursday, which, of course, he would cancel in a moment if the House desire. I do not think they would wish him to do that if we can take this Debate equally conveniently to-morrow.

Mr. MacDONALD: If the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has an engagement on Thursday, then, so far as we are concerned, we will fit in with his arrangements. I was going to ask for Thursday as being the more convenient day, but if any readjustment of business is necessary on account of taking the Debate to-morrow, we shall do our best to assist.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Speaking for my colleagues on these benches, and for myself, I may say that we are in agreement with the arrangement, provided, of course, that we shall have full opportunity of expressing our views on the Bill which is to be taken on Thursday. We take a great interest in that Bill.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

SOCIALIST PARTY.

Mr. REMER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the necessity of sending the Socialist party on a trip round the British Empire —[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—at their own expense, or, alternatively, to Russia, and move a Resolution.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not time someone moved a Resolution that the Tory party should cease to waste the time of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DAL-RYMPLE-WHITE: I beg to give notice that to-morrow fortnight I will call attention to the difference between the theory and practice of the Socialist party as regards the right of free speech, and move a Resolution.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Meller; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Oman.

Report to lie upon the Table.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

Minutes of the, Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF lNDIA (INDIAN NAVY) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of Government of India Act.)

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out Subsection (1).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Amendments on the Paper? If my hon. Friend is called upon now to move this Amendment, I hope you will put the Question so as to preserve other Amendments to Clause 1, which otherwise would be cut out. There are other Amendments which raise separate issues. There is an Amendment on Sub-section (2), which would have the effect of leaving no charge to be paid by the revenues of India, and there is another Amendment on the same Sub-section which would leave the matter to the discretion of the Indian Legislature. These are two distinct points and, although I do not think we shall want to discuss them at any great length, I want to know whether it is possible for you to safeguard these Amendments when you put the Amendment now proposed to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment on the Paper is to leave out Sub-section (1), but I will do my best to safeguard the two Amendments referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand also that the fourth Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words
except that if the Governor-General declares that a state of emergency exists which justifies such action, the Governor-General in Council may place at the disposal of the Admiralty all or any of such forces and vessels, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Admiralty to accept such offer—
should be discussed on this Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Before giving my reasons for asking the House to accept this Amendment, I think it is necessary to explain exactly its purport. The main object of this Bill is the creation of an Indian Navy for the protection of the shores of India. With that object hon. Members on these benches are in substantial agreement. But the Bill also seeks to make in certain circumstances and under certain safeguards provision for the diversion of the Indian Navy to other areas. When the Bill was on the Floor of this House on Second Beading, we took the view that these safeguards were quite inadequate, and in Committee moved Amendments with the view of substituting what we considered were genuine safeguards for those which are in the Bill. These Amendments were rejected by the Noble Lord on behalf of the Government. Therefore, having come to the conclusion that the safeguards in the Bill are quite illusory, we consider that the right course is to get rid altogether of the provisions which enable this Indian Navy to be used for purposes other than guarding the shores of India. It is for that purpose that we have put down the fourth Amendment on the Order Paper, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has referred. The effect of that Amendment would be to confine the use of the Indian Navy to the protection of the shores of India. At the present stage of this Bill that Amendment would be out of order if previous words in Subsection (1) had already been declared part of the Bill; and it is in order to safeguard this later Amendment that I am moving the present Amendment, which has to be read in conjunction with it. Its object, as I have said, is to confine the use of the Indian Navy to the shores of India and preclude its use for other purposes. Having made that explanation, I come to the reasons on which I ask the House to give us its support. As I understand it, the defence of the Bill in its present form is two-fold. It is supported by two considerations, which I venture to suggest are somewhat conflicting if not mutually destructive. The first one on which it is attempted to defend the provisions of the Bill is that, as India is part of the British Empire it is essential that an Indian
Navy shall, if necessary, be available for all Imperial usages. That argument would hold water in one of two circumstances. If, instead of being the Indian Navy it was the Marine, and if we were to go back to a time when it was recruited frankly as part of the British forces, manned by Britishers with a few Indians thrown in, then, I think, it would be quite natural, as part of the British Navy, that it should be used in any part of the world. If, on the other hand, we look forward to a time when India is a wholly self-governing part of the British Empire with a Navy entirely at the disposal of India in the same way as are the ships of Australia or some of the other parts of the self-governing Dominions, then, again, it is reasonable that such a navy should, with the concurrence of the self-governing country itself, be available as part of the British forces in any part of the world. But the fact is that to-day we are in a transition stage. We are endeavouring to get a Navy which shall be a real Indian Navy, manned and ultimately officered by Indians, and yet at the same time we have not a self-governing constitution in India, and it would rest solely with the Governor-General-in-Council to decide how the Navy should be used. It seems to me that if the change we are making in this Bill is not merely one of name, but is intended to be one of substance and to be recognised as one of substance, then, during this transition stage, we ought not to insist that the Indian Navy shall be used in this way.
The other defence which is put forward is that this Indian Navy is such a little one that it is no matter anyway. That reminds one of the story of the young woman who brought a rather unexpected and, perhaps, undesired baby into the world, and made an excuse for it on the ground that it was such a little one. Not only babies, but navies also grow up, and it is quite likely, and I think it is expected, that this Indian Navy which we are proposing to create will go on increasing. The seaport trade of India is growing steadily, and at the present time we are opening up a new great harbour in India which I had the pleasure of visiting when I was there a few months ago, and on which, I believe, several crores of rupees are authorised to be spent, and on which 10 or 15 crores of
rupees are to be spent after some years have gone by. That Indian Navy, which is concerned with the protection of the shores of India, is bound to become quite a considerable force. If the Indian Navy is to be a big one, then, I think, this proposal is dangerous from many points of view. If it is to be a small one, which I believe is actually the case, then the hypothetical gain which we are going to obtain by the insertion of this provision is not worth the loss of the advantage which we shall suffer through opposing the opinions of people in India, for there is no doubt that, whether it be big or little, Indian opinion is very sensitive on such points at the present time; and, if the object of the Bill in creating an Indian Navy in substitution for the force which exists at the present time, is to some extent desired as a concession to Indian opinion, then it seems to me to be very foolish, when doing this, to go counter to Indian opinion on one of the details of the proposal.
I know I shall be told that one cannot take Indian opinion merely from Indian politicians. That is always said on occasions of this kind, and it was said when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. The whole of vocal India is behind the political views which are expressed on this matter, and, if hon. Members opposite dispute the fact that that is the opinion of India, then I say the onus of proof rests upon them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Hon. Members say, "No," but if you have one expression of opinion put forward by large sections of people, then, unless you can bring forward an equally widespread or substantial opinion to the contrary, your case, obviously, goes by default. As a matter of fact, it is always argued, where you have an expression of view by a certain number of intellectuals, that they do not represent the view of the people. That argument has led statesmen into many mistakes in the past, and it is likely to do so again in the future. Many hon. Members opposite who speak with some experience of India do so from knowledge which dates back 20 years, or, perhaps, not so long. The fact is that experience of 20, 10, five, or even two or three years ago is not reliable at the present time, for, contrary to the belief that has been put into the form of an aphorism, the so-called Unchanging East is changing
with extraordinary rapidity, and those who do not recognise that fact and who think that the East is the East and will always remain so were proved wrong a little while ago in Japan, and will prove to he wrong again both in India and in China. I venture to think that what may be to-day in those Eastern countries little more than a cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, may, if it be not dealt with, break into a great storm over the heads of the Western countries.
In support of this provision in the Bill, it is also said that, after all, we are dealing with the Indian Navy in the way that we already deal with the Indian Army. In any case, that is not a fortunate parallel at the present time, because we have the Indian Army used in China, and that action is very much resented by large numbers of people in India. I want, however, to suggest that the case of the Navy is not parallel with the case of the Army. You have the Indian Army normally situated, perhaps, in one of the Hill stations in India, and before they can be moved to distant foreign countries a very considerable amount of apparatus has to be put into motion. To transport the Indian Army abroad, is a very considerable undertaking. On the other hand, if the Government declare a state of emergency and allow the Admiralty thereby to use the Indian Navy for some other purpose, it can be moved with very little notice, and I am not sure that it cannot be done secretly and without the knowledge of the people here or in India. Perhaps the Noble Lord will inform us later whether that could actually happen, because I am not quite clear upon the matter. But whether that be so or not, I do suggest that the power to move the Indian Navy from protecting the shores of India to a foreign country would be a very much easier thing than to move the Indian Army.
I also venture to suggest that the proposal in the Bill is bad for recruiting. We desire to enlist in the Indian Navy the patriotism of the Indian people. The patriotism of the young men in India will be aroused by the knowledge that their services are to be used in the legitimate defence of their own country, but it is quite another thing to assume that patriotism is going to be equally aroused
if the idea gets abroad that the Navy is merely to be used as part of the British Navy and is to be sent to any part of the world. We have evidence that there are at the present time a certain number of young men in India who, from their own point of view, are patriotic. They are willing to take great risks by running into courses which we, equally with the Noble Lord opposite, think wholly deplorable. But we know, and he knows and certainly realises, that they do it from a sense of patriotism. If we want men who are adventurous and patriotic and who are willing to lay down their lives if necessary, I do urge that we shall not get the men we want unless we confine the use of this Navy to the defence of the shores of India itself.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to take a long view in this matter. I credit Members of all sections of the House with the desire to secure a contented people in India, proud of taking their part in the British Empire. I do hope that the House will not, for some purely trifling and temporary gain, lose the chance of securing this end. Members who sit opposite and on the lower benches below the Gangway claim to be the Imperialists in this House. I venture I think that we are the true Imperialists, because we recognise that a great Empire can only be built up on co-operation and good will. The prototypes of hon. Members opposite lost to the British Empire that great, splendid, rich tract of country which is now the United States of America. As far as the people of British descent are concerned,. they learned their lesson once for all. But that is not enough. The lesson that a great Empire can be built up only on mutual understanding, assistance and good will, applies, and must apply, not merely to members of the British race, but also to those peoples of a common ancestry with ours, who inhabit the great peninsula of India.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I indicate at once the reasons why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. A perusal of the Bill will show that Sub-sections (1) and (2) can
very largely be read together. Sub-section (2) says that the new Indian Navy shall be used only for the purpose of the defence of India, broadly speaking in Indian? territorial waters, unless the Governor-General in Council declares that a- state of emergency exists which justifies its being used elsewhere, and Sub-section (1) of the Clause says that where such forces are used outside the confines of Indian territorial waters, the revenues of India shall not be applied to their support except with the consent of this House and of another place. As I understood the rather mixed argument which the Mover of the Amendment used, he seeks to brush away both Sub-sections, in other words, it is his wish and intention that in no circumstances shall the new Indian Navy be used outside Indian territorial waters, or outside what might be called the narrow definition of the defence of India. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assent. That of course raises the issue.
Before dealing with it I would say that what is proposed in the Bill is exactly the same as is in operation in more or less similar circumstances in regard to the Indian Army; that is to say, the Indian Army cannot be used outside of India except on a declaration by the Governor-General that a state of emergency exists, and, secondly, if it is so used the Indian revenues cannot be applied to its sustenance except upon a Resolution of this House and of another place. So that it is not sought to put the Indian Navy in a different position from that of the Army. From an administrative point of view, it would be extremely inconvenient to have the new Navy and the Army on different bases. If this House and another place and the Indian Legislative Assembly have accepted as a matter of course the existing position in regard to the Indian Army, which is a much larger force than the Indian Navy is ever likely to be, it seems rather absurd to ask this House to make an alteration in the case of the Navy.
But quite apart from that and taking the Amendment on its merits, I must say that I seldom heard a less convincing speech than that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. If he will excuse my saying so, I am amazed at what I can only describe as his courage in claiming that he and his friends are the only
true Imperialist party in this House, for a more parochial proposal than that which the hon. Member made I have never heard. I would like to issue to him a sort of challenge. Has he behind him any party, so far as Indian opinion is concerned, in favour of a proposal which would virtually condemn the Indian Navy for all time to being employed only in Indian territorial waters? The hon. Member talked of Indian public opinion and seemed to try to lead me to say that I did not place much reliance upon it. On the contrary, I place a great deal of reliance on it, and it is my duty to do so. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State and I pay very close attention to the opinions expressed by a majority of political opinion in India. In no sense has it been expressed by any responsible section as it has been by the hon. Member in respect of his proposal.
The Amendment would exclude the Indian Navy from ever being used for general Imperial purposes as long as this Bill was in, operation. No such restrictive covenant is applied to the New Zealand and Australian Navies. The hon. Member's motives, though, no doubt, they are of the best and are intended to please opinion in India, will be very seriously questioned by those whom he quotes as representing Indian public opinion. They will say, "Here is an hon. Member of the House of Commons who has deliberately said that he is in favour of this new force being; put in a humiliating position which is not occupied by any of the Dominion Navies, the position of being used only in Indian territorial waters." The hon. Member used an argument which was one of the most extraordinary I have heard during the 23 years I have been in this House. He said that this force could be used only for legitimate defence. Speaking of recruiting, he said there was a number of Indians who took a great interest in the force, that it was very necessary to stimulate Indian patriotism, and that Indian patriotism could only be stimulated among Indians for the legitimate defence of their own country. Has the hon. Gentleman ever studied naval warfare? Does he realise that it is as impossible to set any bound to the field of sea warfare as it is to set any bounds to the planetary system? Once a conflict starts, you cannot say that it
shall be confined to one sea. Does the hon. Member not realise that in the Great War from 1914 to 1918, India was as much defended in the North Sea as in the Indian Ocean, and that had it not been for what occurred in the North Sea and in the Mediterranean there would have been an invasion of India and hostile action against Indian ports? Therefore, how can anyone say that the legitimate defence of one's own country is confined to the territorial waters of that country? That is the argument of the hon. Member.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If that be so, what is the meaning of Subsection (2), because there the distinction is drawn between being used for the purposes of the Government of India and being used for other purposes? I was really using a phrase which was intended to be synonymous with those distinctions.

Earl WINTERTON: The meaning of the phrase in the Bill is that the Navy may be used in territorial waters in the narrow sense of the word, but the hon. Gentleman was going very much further than that. He was saying that in no circumstances could it be held that the Indian Navy could be used for the defence of India if it was used elsewhere than around the immediate shores of India. I say that that is not so. I had experience of Indian troops during the War. It is outrageous to suggest that Indians have such a limited view of patriotism as to think that the defence of their country, which is only part of the Empire, can take place only within the narrow limits of Indian territorial waters or of India's shores. Every-Indian who fought for the Empire in the Great War regarded himself., wherever he was fighting, as defending his own country as much as other parts of the Empire.
The Amendment would make a fundamental alteration in the Bill, and the objections to it are three-fold. First of all it would create administrative inconvenience. Secondly, the hon. Member used no argument to show that it is reasonable to create the anomaly that would be created if his proposal were adopted, by which the Indian Army would be subject to one set of regulations and enactments in respect of both this House and the Assembly in India, while the
Navy would be placed in an entirely different position. Thirdly, I say that no such limit as he seeks to place on the patriotism of people who are likely to join the Indian Navy need be placed. It is most unlikely that the Indian Navy, in the size which it is contemplated it shall be, would be widely used outside of Indian waters in war, though if unhappily there should be a big naval war, it might be that some of the ships would be used for other purposes. In that event I challenge the hon. Member to find any Indian among the types and classes who have been accustomed in the past to defend their own country, who would not say that it was really an odious implication on their patriotism to make them declare "Yes, we are willing to fight in Indian territorial waters but we are not willing to fight elsewhere." For those reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the Noble Lord has misunderstood or misinterpreted the arguments that we have put forward. It may very well be that the people of India one day, of their own volition, may want a Navy and may want to fight under conditions in company with the British Fleet or any other fleet, but this Bill lays it down that the Fleet may be used under conditions where the Indian Legislature will have no power whatever, and the Indian peoples will have no power whatever to say where it shall be used or how it shall be used. It for the reason that the Noble Lord has emphasised several times, for the reason that you propose to use the Navy in the same manner that you are using the Indian Army now, that we oppose the Clause.

Earl WINTERTON: I said exactly the opposite. I emphasised the fact that it was extremely unlikely that the Navy would be used in the way indicated.

Mr. LANSBURY: That is not what I said. The Noble Lord has quite a quick faculty of rising and correcting when he has not understood what we are saying. It may be that we are very difficult to understand. The Noble Lord used the argument that it would be administratively very difficult to have one set of arrangements for the Navy and another set for the Army. He also said that he believes that the men who serve in the
Indian Army have no objection, and that the people of India have no objection, to that Army serving in parts of the world other than India. We challenge that proposition altogether. We deny that public opinion in India is in any position to express itself on the question whether the Indian troops should be used in China or not. Under the Bill in its present form the new Navy could be used anywhere in defiance of Indian public opinion. Consequently, the Noble Lord's argument that we on this side want to deny the people of India the right of saying where their fleet shall be used, falls to the ground because under this Bill they have no such right. The only person in India who would have the right to determine that matter would be the Viceroy and the only legislative authority which would have power in that matter would be this House and another place. We say that the people of India are the people who should say, first, whether this Navy is wanted or not and, secondly, where this Navy is to be used. In view of the fact that in a couple of years the Government of the day will be obliged to appoint a Commission to consider further amendments of the Indian constitution there should be no hurry in rushing through this small Bill and starting this new experiment. As to the question of whether we on this side stand to serve Imperialism better than the party opposite, I would only say that our view of Imperialism is not that of domination. We believe in a commonwealth of nations, free partners with each other, and we believe that India ought to have the chance of saying whether or not she wants to be a partner in the British Commonwealth. We certainly think she ought to have the right to say whether she wants a Navy or not; and it is only the people of India who ought to have the right of saying when and where such a Navy is to be used.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The original Amendments on the Paper dealt with two distinct points. One was the question of the payment for this Navy when used at the discretion of the Admiralty away from Indian waters and the other was whether the Navy should be so used at all without the consent of the Indian legislature. As the Amendments have been taken, we have to some extent combined these two points, but
there is a further Amendment in the Paper in connection with which I. propose to raise the question of payment. We are at present discussing the question of the use of the Navy and therefore I take the opportunity of making such remarks as I am going to make on that subject now, though this is not my Amendment. The Noble Lord always starts his speeches in this House as one of the elder statesmen. He always meets our arguments at first from the higher plane of his exalted office, but then he becomes the sprightly backbencher of 20 years ago, when he delighted this House by his interruptions—as I know well though I had not the pleasure then of being in Parliament with him. At such times he descends to a certain violence of expression and, while I do not use the expression in any offensive sense, I think in the present instance he has misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Perhaps owing to the way in which the Amendment is drawn it might appear as though my hon. Friend the Mover meant to confine the Indian Navy to Indian territorial waters but that of course is not our intention at all. We know that even this Navy—as it is at present—of four sloops, two patrol vessels, four trawlers, two survey ships and a depot ship cannot be confined to territorial waters. But I think the Mover of the Amendment was not going too far in suggesting that without the consent of the Indian legislature this force should be confined more or less to Indian waters.
The Noble Lord says he never heard of a naval force being confined to any particular area. During the height of the late War, when we were hard pressed for patrol vessels to act against the submarine compaign, the Japanese came to our assistance and sent destroyers to help us in the Mediterranean. Incidentally, may I say that they ran themselves to death and did splendid work, but they acted on the stipulation, owing to the distance from their home waters, that they were not to go beyond the Mediterranean. I was serving in the Navy then, and I know what the orders were, and the arrangement was that they were not to be sent further west than the Straits of Gibraltar, and as a matter of fact they were kept east of Malta. But there you have an actual case of the use of a naval force being confined to a definite
area. The Noble Lord asked for such an instance. He has now got one, and I hope he will not again use the argument which he has just used in that connection. The Noble Lord's defence of this Sub-section rests principally on the fact that the Indian Army can be used at the will of the Governor-General in Council, after a declaration of a state of emergency, and it is argued that it would be impossible to differentiate between the Army and the Navy in this respect. That is where we join issue with the Noble Lord. We regret that the Indian Army can be used in that way. I would like to see an amendment of the Government of India Act providing that Indian troops were not to be used out-side the confines of India, without the consent of the Indian Legislature. But that is not the same thing as saying that the young Indian who is joining the Army is only to be used for home defence. It does mean that he is not to be used outside India on work other than the defence of India, except with the consent of the Indian Legislature. I think the Noble Lord made an unfortunate comparison when he worked himself up at the end of his speech and made references to the armies of Australia or South Africa.

Earl WINTERTON: I said the Australian Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am talking about the army at the moment, but I will take the Noble Lord on the question of the navy. The comparison with the navy of Australia is a bad one. Does he think that the navy of Australia, which is a considerable force now, can be used for general Admiralty purposes without the consent of the Australian Parliament? Good heavens, no! It could not be done, whatever party was in power in the Federal Parliament. Does the Noble Lord seriously suppose—to return to the army comparison—that South African troops could be taken away from South Africa or Canadian troops from Canada and used anywhere at all, without the consent of the respective Parliaments? Of course not! That is the whole difference between India and the other Dominions. That is what we object to. We say you would get more willing, and therefore
more valuable, service if you put India on the same plane as the other Dominions where her armed forces are concerned. India should be in the same position in this respect as the free self-governing Dominions. At present we have a colour bar. We say the Indians are a subject people and therefore Indian troops, who enlist voluntarily, shall be sent away from India anywhere we like—China or wherever we are in trouble—without the consent of the Indian Legislature. We set up an Indian Legislature, but we do not put it on the same level as regards the use of its own forces as the legislatures of Canada and South Africa. I re-echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester that we on this side are by far better Imperialists than the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we realise that when you have new forces working in Asia, when you have a renaissance coming in China as it has come there before, you have to treat India in a certain way in order to get the best service and assistance from India.
You can only do it by appealing to the Indian imagination and that is where the Noble Lord fails. He says he has served alongside Indian troops and knows what they are thinking about. I venture to say that in spite of his recent visit to the East he does not know what Asia is thinking to-day. He may have met many civilians in the East, he may have met many Princes, but it is necessary to know what is being said in the bazaars of India on the events in China, in order to understand this business, and I suggest the Noble Lord does not understand it, as this Bill shows. The India Office which is capable of treating this matter as it is treated in the Bill, is unfit to govern a great Empire like the Indian Empire. When this new navy is being created by this House, we should be failiug in our duty if we did not protest against the implications of this Bill. I would have preferred a straight issue on this question, but that was not possible owing to the way in which the Bill is drawn. We repeat that to use the Navy of India without the consent of the people of India ought not to be attempted, and we are bound to resist such a proposal. I regret that what happened upstairs, when the Government majority on this question was very narrow, and what happened on the Floor of the House previously, has
not taught the Noble Lord that he could do more, by putting this little force at the sole disposition of the Indian Legislature, to satisfy real patriotic opinion in India at a very cheap cost than he can do by all the speeches he makes in this House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'without,' in line 16, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 113.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[4.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James [...].
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Albery, Irving James
England, Colonel A.
Lougher, Lewis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lumley, L. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Apsley, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Atholl, Duchess of
Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Atkinson, C.
Foster, Sir Henry S.
MacIntyre, Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
McNeill, Rt, Hon. Ronald John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bethel, A.
Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Betterton, Henry B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Malone, Major P. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guinness, Rt Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brown, Maj.D.C. (N'th'l'd.,Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harney, E. A.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Owen, Major G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Perring, Sir William George


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cayzer, sir C, (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holland, Sir Arthur
Preston, William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Raine, W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rice, Sir Frederick


Couper, J. B.
Huntingfield, Lord
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hutchison,G. A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Savory, S. S.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W.)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dixey, A. C
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers Waldron


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Strauss, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L (Kingtton-on-Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and otley)
Wolmer, Viscount


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Templeton, W. P.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wiggins, William Martin



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Sir George Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd. Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Macbonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Viant, S P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Oswald
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Whiteley.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "not" to the word "be" in line 17.
The discussion on the last Amendment dealt with the use of the Indian Navy, and the Amendment I now move deals with the payment for that Navy when the Admiralty take it over. The Subsection, if amended as I propose, would read that the revenues of India shall not be applicable to defraying the expenses when we take over their Navy and use it for general Imperial purposes. That is reasonable enough, but the Noble Lord's draughtsmen have inserted in the Bill the words "without the consent of both Houses of
Parliament." That means that if the Government of the day decide that the cost of the Indian Navy shall be thrown on the Indian Exchequer, then by Resolution of this House and another place with an automatic majority, the revenues of India are to be charged with the cost while the Indian Navy is being used for these other purposes. This must be read in conjunction with Subsection (2), which says it shall be
employed for the purposes of the Government of India loan, except that if the Governor-General declares ….
That means that this force will usually be employed for the purposes of the Government of India alone, but the Governor-General can say, "No, it shall not be used
for those purposes alone," and then a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament in London, and the revenues of India are charged with the cost. That, we think, is unfair, and my Amendment is to leave out the words "without the consent of both Houses of Parliament," so that the Bill will then read that "the revenues of India shall not be applicable" when the Navy is used for other purposes than those of the Government of India, in accordance with Subsection (2).
Therefore, it is now a question of who shall pay the piper when we call the tune. It might be said that there is the safeguard of Parliament, but look at the constitution of this Parliament at the present time! There is the greatest Conservative majority that has ever sat in this House, and I venture to say the most docile and servile, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir P. Wise) and another hon. Member. At the crack of the whip, the whole of the Conservative party, 415 strong, are to be seen scurrying into the Lobby. Indeed, since the Prime Minister put the Noble Lord on the Front Bench, there is no independence on the back benches at all. We shall be told by the Under-Secretary, "Oh, but look at the safeguard of both Houses of Parliament." I say that with a Conservative majority in power to-day, there is no bulwark at all against the executive. There is no safeguard for the taxpayers of this country and certainly none for the taxpayers of India. Therefore, this is an altogether illusory safeguard. When the Labour party was in power, the back benches always ruled the roost—an excellent thing for keeping the Cabinet up to its work. I wish the back benches opposite would show a little backbone, and then we should have the present Cabinet stirred up.
However, I must not enter into a digression about the servility of the back benches; but I do wish to say—and I think it will be agreed by all fair-minded people—that this so-called safeguard is illusory. The present force is a small and a cheap one. The present cost is only about 63 lakhs of rupees, but there is no reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) pointed out when the Bill was introduced, once you get this Bill through Parliament why you should not greatly strengthen the Indian Navy and make it
quite a costly affair, and then it would be a very serious matter. I think it would be a thoroughly healthy principle, that when the Admiralty takes over this force for purposes other than those of the., Government of India, we should pay. It is only fair; India, is a poor country. If we take this force and use it, the least we can do is to pay for it. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition on my part.

Mr. SNELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I second this Amendment on the ground that has been put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that though the words would appear to give to India some security in the matter of its revenues, in reality those words are quite illusory. It is almost inconceivable that if there were a state of emergency this House would hesitate for a moment, especially if the present Government were in power, to take this arm from the Indian people and put the cost on the Indian revenue. The Noble Lord, in speaking this afternoon, told us that this was a very small affair, that there was no large Navy contemplated. It was to be merely a symbol of a naval power rather than a power in itself. If that be so, then the Imperial power could afford to pay for it. If it is going to be so very small, it is not worth while running the risk of creating a false impression in India in this particular matter. If the Navy be small, the cost involved will be small, and, on that account, the Imperial power ought to pay for it.
5.0 p.m.
If the Noble Lord will forgive me, I would like to revert for a moment to what drew from him certain amused comments that we on this side should claim to be Imperialists of any kind. But it does seem to me that the real Imperial view is to take the long view in the matter, and that is, if you are going to take the Indian Navy from its shores, to use it in any other part of the Empire for any purpose whatever, the decent thing is to pay for it, and not to run the risk of the Indian people feeling that they have got to pay for it themselves. It is really a matter of psychology. What we in all parts of the House want, I assume, is to get the Indian people more and more associated with the government of the various parts of the Empire,
and this would appear to imply a distrust from the very beginning. It would seem to suggest that they would not willingly cooperate in any case of emergency. That, I think, is a very false step, and a very short-sighted view, so, in those circumstances, I hope the House will accept this Amendment and ask this country, if it takes over any portion of the Navy which is to be created, to do the decent thing and pay for it without any equivocation.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that if the Government resists this Amendment then the title of the Bill is a misuse of words. The supreme control of the Navy surely indicates its ownership. If the supreme control is to be vested in this House, then the Navy ceases to be an Indian Navy and becomes for all practical purposes a British Navy. It is surprising that the policy outlined here should emanate from the Conservative party. India is to be asked to pay entirely for its ships and for its Navy. Every penny of the cost is to be met from revenue collected from the poor Indian people. The Conservative party comes along and asks us to accept the principle that, although the Navy is paid for by India, and, according to all the rules of property, should therefore belong to India, we should insist on the right, when it suited our purpose, to be entitled to confiscate this Navy. Coming from the Conservative party, who are continually lecturing us on the terrible evil of using the word confiscation, it does compel one to think. Of course, it is only in keeping with the history and tradition of the party opposite. Just as in the class war, they denounce us for using the phrase, in the same way they denounce us for using the word confiscation, but they practise the class war whenever it suits them, and they practise confiscation and robbery whenever it suits them. After all, in this they are only carrying out in regard to the Navy what has been their traditional policy in the treatment of India generally. They are in India for the purpose of robbing the toilers of that country, and they are only carrying to its logical conclusion that policy when they lay it down as a Governmental principle that, although India is to have a Navy and is to pay for the Navy, whenever the Navy is wanted by us we
will seize that Navy and use it, and will not even undertake to pay for it during the time we have it in our possession.

Earl WINTERTON: In reply to the Amendment I would just like to say, if I may do so without offence to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), that I heard him with great pleasure, though I cannot pretend to have any measure of agreement with him on the matter. I thank him for the compliment he paid to me with regard to my independence. I would reply that, however independent I may have been in the old days, I was never sufficiently independent to make two speeches on the same point So far as I can see the point now raised by the hon. and gallant Member is the same point that we have been discussing on the previous Amendment, and he will therefore excuse me if I do not enter into a lengthy reply to some of the arguments which he brought forward, because they have been discussed on the previous Amendment. But I will reply to his main argument, which was that it would be a great mistake to offend the susceptibilities of the Indian people by putting a provision of this kind in the Bill, and that it would be very much better to exclude it altogether. I can only reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the same way as I replied on the previous Amendment, and as I replied to a similar Amendment moved in Committee upstairs. I think he has no authority to say that the Indian people would be offended by this provision. It is exactly the same provision, in other words, as is applied to the needs of the Army. The Army cannot be used outside of India and paid for out of Indian revenues without the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the procedure in this Clause is exactly the same as in the case of the Army.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the Noble Lord will forgive me, I must point out that he is wrong when he says that the Indian Navy cannot be used and paid for without the consent of this House. Sub-section 2 does not say anything about the consent of this House, but about the consent of the Governor-General in Council. It is only where payment is concerned that the consent of this House comes in.

Earl WINTERTON: I said that the Indian Navy could not be used or paid for,
but I will say that the Indian Navy cannot be used and paid for—I will alter the word "or" to "and"—and a claim made for it from the Indian revenues without the consent of this House. I say it is quite obvious that if this Bill becomes an Act, the position will be exactly the same in respect of the Navy as it is in respect of the Army. I see no reason of any sort why offence should be taken in the case of the Navy. This is a similar provision to that provided in the case of the Army, and I fail to see why there should be any difference. The truth is that this has been the method and the procedure followed in the case of the Army for years past, and it has been found satisfactory. I think it is extremely unlikely that this House would be asked by this or any subsequent Government to devote the revenues of India to this purpose. I think it very unlikely that the power laid down would be used. It has not been used in the case of the Indian Army since the war. It is very unlikely to be used. It is only there because it is considered to be the most convenient and proper method of procedure should the emergency arise. The effect of the Amendment, of course, is negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, it is not negative at all.

Earl WINTERTON: The effect of the Amendment would be that this part of the Sub-section would read:
the revenues of India shall not be applicable to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces ….
The Amendment makes complete nonsense of this Sub-section, because it puts for the first time in an Act of Parliament words which would completely alter the procedure. But the whole point is that it is very unlikely that this Sub-section would be operative at all. It has not been put into operation in the case of the Army, and it is very unlikely to be put into operation in the case of the Navy. If the Amendment was carried, what would be the situation? That is why I used the term nonsense. Perhaps it is not the right term to use in that connection, but the situation would be that in no circumstances could India be asked to provide money to defray the expenses of any vessels used outside Indian territorial waters. I do not think that this House
is anxious to impose any such restrictive covenant upon India or upon the Indian people, to whom reference has been made in this Debate. Once again, as I said when speaking on the first Amendment, I refuse to believe that Indian patriotism is of such a restrictive character.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: indicated dissent.

Earl WINTERTON: I see the hon. and gallant Member is not satisfied. Let me read the Sub-section to him. The Subsection states:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are in accordance with the provisions of this Act placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not"—
this is where the Amendment will come in, and how the. Sub-section will read if it is carried:
be applicable to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.
I say that that is nonsense because it is putting a restrictive covenant upon the Indian people. It says that in the future, at no time, however much it might be desired by the people of India and by Indian public opinion, in no circumstances can they give money, even if they wanted to do so, for general naval defence. This Amendment really makes nonsense of the Bill and is quite unnecessary. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said about the position of this country and India generally, let me tell him that, when it is in order, which I submit it is not on this Bill, to raise the general question, I shall be very glad to answer him fully on the statement which he in a responsible position saw fit to make, that we have always Been in India purely for the purposes of robbery.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot understand how the Noble Lord can pretend that the omission of these words will make nonsense of Sub-section (1) of the Bill. The Bill as it stands provides in the first place for an Indian Navy. In the second place in Sub-section (2) it provides that in certain circumstances the Navy shall be used for purposes other than the purposes of the Government of
India. Sub-section (1) states that in general when it is so used other than for the purposes of the Government of India it shall not be paid for by the Indian people. All our Amendment does is to remove the exception in Sub-section (1). If our Amendment is carried it will make perfectly good sense. I was very much amused, in the course of the Noble Lord's speech, to hear him use the actual words which he accused me of using when he said that I had talked absolute rubbish when I pointed out that the distinction between the forces being used in and around India, and he took me very severely to task for that. He said it was absurd to pretend that you could limit the place in which a Navy would be used, and that he could not make the distinction which I had drawn. When I pointed out to him that I was endeavouring to express in other words the distinction contained in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, namely, the distinction between the Navy being used for the purposes of the Government of India and being used otherwise, he said that was an entirely different thing. Yet when he himself comes to expound Sub-section (1) he uses the same words which he had found fault with me for using in regard to the distinction. I think that is the best comment on the Noble Lord's attitude to me in regard to the Bill.
The Noble Lord says further that he does not think that the expense ever will be thrown on the Indian people in this case. That is very likely so, but our answer to that is that, if it be really true that this power is never going to be used, why on earth do you put it in? It seems to me merely to be arousing suspicion quite unnecessarily. I should have thought it was perfectly clear that, if the Government of this country did intend under certain circumstances to use this Indian Navy, not for the purposes of the Government of India but for the purposes of this country, the people of this country, in common decency, should pay for the use of the Navy in those circumstances. I do not think so ill of hon. Members opposite or of the Noble Lord himself as to imagine that they would take any other course. We do not know at present what is going to be done in this connection with regard to the use of the Indian Army in China, but I imagine that this
country will foot the bill in that case, and I believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that, even with this provision in, the Government of this country would be so mean as to throw the burden upon India, not when the Indian Navy was used just outside that country but when it was definitely used for this country. Therefore, what is the use of arousing suspicion and making ourselves appear as if we were going to be so mean, when the Noble Lord himself has said that it is very unlikely that we should use this power? I strongly support the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is an awful thing to find that the Noble Lord can sometimes nod. It is like a, sign almost of approaching age. Evidently he had not read the Amendment, he had not got up his case, he had not been properly coached, because this Amendment is not only common sense but it makes the Bill a good deal more sensible. The substantial words of the Clause are
Where any naval forces … are … placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not be applicable … if … they are not employed on Indian naval defence.
Those are the substantial words of the Clause, and they remain if this Amendment is carried, but if the Amendment is not carried, we are told that, where any naval forces are placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, the revenues of India shall not be applicable without the consent, not of India, but of the Houses of Parliament, if they are not employed on Indian naval defence. In the first place, I think the alteration ought to be made, because it would carry out the universal practice of our relations with India. The Noble Lord seemed to be under the impression that the Indian Government paid for the troops used in France in the Great War, but I do not think that was so. I think our relations with India, so far as the Army is concerned, have been that we have always, without any exception, paid the expenses of those troops when used away from India. I am almost certain that we did it in the Egyptian War, and again in the South African War.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not intend to suggest that India paid the cost. The extra cost was paid for by this country,
but India gave a large money sum towards the expenses of the Great War, and I think—although it is a long time ago, and I should have to look up the references—also in the case of some previous wars. The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent India from doing that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I am quite right. There has not been a single occasion on which India has helped us with her Army, either in South Africa, or in Egypt, or in Flanders, or, I think, at the present time in China, where the Imperial Exchequer has not paid the cost of the Indian troops. It has been the universal practice. In fact, it is one of the points upon which every Indian Administration has always insisted, that when the Indian troops were used outside India for Imperial purposes the Imperial Government should pay. That has been the universal practice so far as the Army is concerned, and presumably it will be so far as the Navy is concerned. The Noble Lord says that India contributed towards the cost of the War. She did, and a very generous contribution it was, but it was not specifically earmarked for the cost of troops in France. That came out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, and if it came out of our pockets in those days, when we were extremely hard up for money, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we should call upon India to pay the cost of the Indian Navy if it were used in parallel or similar circumstances. That being so. obviously, if we leave these words out, the situation for the Indian Navy will be exactly similar to that for the Indian Army.
I wish the House could picture themselves for one moment in the position of India. If this Amendment is carried, this Clause is a perfectly honest bargain between England and India. If, however, the Amendment is not carried, just think what will be the impression created upon the ordinary Indian elector or politician. They will say: "Here is a straightforward bargain, but, at the instance of one party to the bargain, the contract can be upset, and the English Parliament can free themselves from the liability of paying for the Indian Navy." Apart altogether from the fact that we never have done it in the case of the Indian Army, and apart from the fact that I
cannot imagine any Parliament deliberately putting the burden upon the Indians, especially in the future, as the Indian self-governing institutions grow, apart from that, we could not be comfortable in the position where we should be voting money into our own pockets. We should be using the power of Great Britain actually to make the Indians pay for what, under the terms of the original bargain, we had to pay for. If it were the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Indian Council of State that had the power of saying: "No, we will not ask England to pay in this particular case; we realise that their burdens are heavier than ours, and, therefore, we will sanction the expenditure coming out of India's pocket," then the position would be understandable, and it would be in the long run, in my opinion, far more financially beneficial to the people of this country.
We may put these powers in this Bill, but we know we cannot use them, as we never have in the case of the Army. We know, therefore, that they will be of no service to us financially at any time, and yet, instead of leaving it to the decision of the beneficiaries, the British taxpayer and the British House of Commons, if we leave it to the Indian Parliament we might, when we are in dire straits, find that assistance there for which we could not ask, but which we might very well receive if it were given. I think this Amendment has quite the strongest case behind it of any Amendment that I have seen for a long time past. It would improve the Bill, it would improve the opinion of India in regard to this Bill, and it would improve our chances of getting financial assistance. As a very strong supporter of the idea of an Indian Navy—I want to see India build up its own defensive forces, officered by Indians—I should strongly urge that the Bill be improved by the acceptance of this Amendment, and that thereby we should show that we here, in this country, are not anxious to queer the pitch by having words in a contract which are one-sided and could be used for our benefit, although we do not intend so to use them.

Major CRAWFURD: Until the intervention of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is always as clear as he is
emphatic, a great part of this Debate seemed to me to be taken up with an attempt at explaining what the Amendment is. The Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for India, tried to show that what was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in this Amendment was nonsense, and the hon. and gallant Member himself was endeavouring to show that, at any rate, if be did not know what the Amendment meant, he knew what he meant it to mean, and the result, to my mind, seems to be that, up to this point, we are not clear as to what the effect of the Amendment is. The Noble Lord, in his intervention in the middle of the speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, discussed the case of the Indian troops in France, and said that, although they were not called upon to pay for the upkeep and cost of those troops in France—

Earl WINTERTON: Not the extra upkeep.

Major CRAWFURD: —they nevertheless contributed a large sum of money to the. general cost of the War. Could the Noble Lord or, if I may say so, one of his more lucid colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The Noble Lord has tried twice to make clear what is the effect of the Amendment, and I would still like to know whether, if the words of the Amendment were accepted, that would debar the Indian Government from making a contribution of the same kind as it made after the Great War. If so, I am in this dilemma, that I am against the Amendment, but if it is not so, if the effect of the Amendment is merely to prevent the revenues of India being compulsorily taken, I am for the Amendment. Before we go to a Division, I should like to have some authoritative account of what it really means.

Earl WINTERT0N: I will endeavour to answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Waltham-stow (Major Crawfurd), although it was couched in a very discourteous form.

Major CRAWFURD: No, no!

Earl WINTERTON: I will answer the question to the best of my ability, and I will say that, in the first place, in regard
to the cost of the troops during the War, India was not asked to pay more than the normal cost of upkeep. That is to say, India did not wish to profiteer, and she paid what she would have paid in peace time, and the extra cost between the normal cost of upkeep and what it cost to keep troops in the War zone was paid out of Imperial Revenues. The Government of India gave a large money contribution to the cost of the war, however, and my answer to the specific question put by the hon. and gallant Member is that, to the best of my knowledge, the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent. India from making a similar contribution in future in respect of naval operations. The words are
to defraying the expenses of any such vessels or forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.
Previously the Clause speaks of revenue, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Government cannot make a gift of money except out of revenue.

Major CRAWFURD: May I be allowed one minute to make a personal explanation? The Noble Lord has referred to my question as having been couched in discourteous language. I want him to accept it from me that nothing was further from my mind than any idea of being discourteous. The phrase more or less slipped out, or was used in the Pickwickian or ironical sense.

Earl WINTERTON: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. AMMON: It seems to me the Noble Lord himself, in the intervention which he made just before his last intervention, made the case for the applause my hon. Friends have given him. What he said about a grant of money having been made by India in respect of movements of troops in times past makes it quite clear that this Amendment will strengthen his Bill. We did not need the consent of both Houses of Parliament to that grant of money. The Indian Government can grant any sums of money they like without coming to this Parliament. This Amendment simply seeks to remove words in order to make that quite clear. May I remind the Noble Lord of the discussion which took place in Committee when my hon. Friends moved to insert certain words to bring about what they desired, and the hon. Member for Penryn and Fal-
mouth (Mr. Pilcher) expressed himself in such doubt that the Noble Lord had to tell him that the interpretation of the Opposition was quite correct? His own Friends desired to remove the words which we are now moving to omit, in order to make the Clause quite clear. The very illustration he brought forward in regard to Egypt and South Africa and the last War when grants of money were made by India to meet the expenses makes it quite clear that they will not be debarred, but that it is not essential, in any case, to have the consent of the British House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I hope the Noble Lord will maintain his resistance to this Amendment, because, as far as I can see if it were inserted, it would make this Clause perfectly ludicrous. The suggestion is that without the consent of both Houses of Parliament no money from Indian sources is to be applicable to defraying the expenses of such vessels or forces so long as they are not employed on Indian naval protection. That would mean that the actual wages of the crews, and so forth, could not. be paid. The position is altogether different from that of the Army during the War. The wages of the crews could not be paid if the vessels were utilised for purposes outside India's defence. But what is Indian naval defence? Naval defence is universal, and if the British Empire were engaged in dealing with an emergency, and some of these vessels were required, or if a certain mine field had been laid down and some of these vessels were engaged in sweeping up the mines it would be impossible to say that that was our defence. All the afternoon hon. Members opposite have been saying we are robbing the poor Indian peasant to pay for our naval defence. What absolute nonsense. What about the hundreds of millions of money of the English taxpayers spent on keeping the peace in India for the last 200 years? We do not get any credit in this country for what the British taxpayer has to pay for the defence of those people. Now, for the first time, they are paying for their own vessels under their own control and to suggest that if ever they go out of Indian waters payment for them by the Indian Government should stop, and the cost should be borne by the British Admiralty, would be a perfectly ludicrous position for the Indian Government.

Mr. J. JONES: I always thought this House stood for the principle of no taxation without representation. In our school days, at any rate, we were led to understand that our greatness was founded upon that principle. Now we are talking about the people of India having control over their own affairs. What a figment of the imagination! The great mass of the Indian people have no voice in saying what shall be done in any Department of their Government. The largest portion of those who control the Government of India are what are called Anglo-Indians, the people who go to India for a certain number of years and come home to England to live upon the results. We are told the Indian people have an Army and a Navy of their own. When has the Army been used to defend the people of India? Who has attacked the people of India? Why, we have;. and yet we are told that we have an Army to defend India. We, know what we mean. We have an Army to defend our interests in India, and now we are going to have a Navy—just to show there is no ill feeling.
The Navy is not to be used solely for the purpose of defending India, it is to be a supplementary force to our Navy when this is engaged in other parts of the world; and if we use the Indian Navy it is only honest that we should pay for it. That is all that is meant by this Amendment, so far as I can understand it. Not being a lord or an ex-student of a university, I may be a little bit dense; but when my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said we were not in India for India's good, but for our own good, why cannot we be honest enough to admit it? Of the 300,000,000 people there not 5,000,000 have a voice in saying how they shall be governed, who shall be in control, and how criminal offences shall be dealt with; and-yet we are told by people talking with their tongues in their cheeks and marbles in their mouths that we are there for their good. No, we are there for their goods. If we wish to protect our propertied interests in India we ought to be men enough to pay the cost. If we call this Navy away from its own shores to fight or to patrol in any other part of the world, the bill is ours and nobody else's. But the impoverished people of India are to be called upon to pay.
The average income of the Indian ryot is not more than £l a year, not £l a week. There are hon. Members who get more in one year for not telling the truth in this House than the Indian native gets in 10,000 years for working honestly. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, I know I cannot speak so politely as some of you,, but I can tell the truth more honestly.

Mr. E. BROWN: Let somebody else say that.

Mr. JONES: I will always give way to the big noise. We say that if we have an Indian Empire, it ought to be a real Empire based upon fraternity amongst the people. Let the native of India have equal rights with the native of Great Britain. No nation is good enough to dominate another, and no nation is poor enough to be dominated by another.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment?

Mr. JONES: The hon. and gallant Member may know a great deal more about the Rules of the House than I do, but not as much as you, Mir. Deputy-Speaker, do. I will submit to your ruling, but never to his. In the course of this Debate reference was made to the connection between Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. There is no such connection. Australia is a democratic State,, where all the adult population have the right to say what kind of Government they shall live under, what kind of force they shall have and how it shall be used. New Zealand has the same right, and so has Canada: and yet for the purpose of gaining a party political point it is submitted that India stands in the same relationship to the Empire as those great self-governing Dominions. We stand for the same rights for India as for Canada, Australia and any other parts of the Empire. The people of India have no voice in saying what shall or what shall not be done. It is done without their consent and without their being consulted. Therefore, we claim that we are doing quite right in bringing forward this Amendment. If the people of India want to be real partners in this great Empire they ought to come in on terms of equality with all other parts of the
Empire, be treated with the same respect and have the same rights as any others belonging to this great Empire which we are so proud of boasting about.

Mr. THURTLE: The Noble Lord suggested that if the Amendment were carried it would be impossible for payment to be made for the Indian naval forces if they were employed outside Indian waters. I submit that that is an incorrect reading of the Amendment. The contingency envisaged by this Amendment is a special contingency. The Clause says:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are in accordance with the provisions of this Act placed at the disposal of the Admiralty.
I want the Noble Lord to take note of that phrase,
are in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
If he turns to Sub-section (2) he will see that it has reference to a state of emergency declared to exist by the Governor-General, and it is only in such circumstances that this particular Clause becomes operative. In the ordinary course of events, when the ordinary management of the Indian Navy prevails, the vessels may go to the uttermost ends of the Seven Seas and it will still be possible for payment to be made out of the Indian Revenue. I would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) to the last few words of this particular Subsection, where it says:
If and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.
At any time when they were employed upon Indian naval defence, it does not matter where, this particular Sub-section would not become operative. I think that disposes of the point he made.
I rose, however, to deal more particularly with the extraordinary vehemence displayed by the Noble Lord in resenting the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). My right hon. Friend said, and I think with truth, that the British, Government were largely in India for what they could make out of India. That was hotly resented by the Noble Lord. On this occasion my right hon. Friend was not being original. Usually when he contributes to a Debate
he is original. In this case he was quoting a most distinguished Member of the present Government, quoting a remark made by the present Home Secretary some time before he became Home Secretary. One day when speaking about India he said in a burst of candour:
Let us be frank. Let us clear all our minds of cant. We are not in India for the love of the Indians, but we are in India for what we can make out of it.
That was what was said by the present Home Secretary in a burst of candour, and it has been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. The next time a Member of the present Government, thinking about India honestly and reveals his thoughts honestly, he will say exactly the same thing, that we are in India not for the good of the Indians, but for what we can make out of them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A question has been asked about the British contribution to the general cost of the Navy. In his speech the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) said that Great Britain and the taxpayers of this country bad never got enough credit for the £300,000,000 which they had paid towards the defence of India by maintaining the British Army and the British Navy, and he compared that with the contribution which the Indian natives are asked to make towards the defences of this country. There is, however, this difference, that Great Britain makes her contribution to the Navy with the consent, or with the partial consent, of the British people through the House of Commons. The £300,000,000 has been paid by the consent of the British people to some extent, but in the case of India we are asking her for a contribution to be made for the purposes of another people without the consent of the people who are called upon to pay. It may be argued that we have been very good to India, and that we have ruled India better than the Indians could have ruled themselves; but after all, because we think we are better rulers of somebody else, that does not give us the right to rule them. For many years, we thought we could rule Ireland better than they could rule themselves. [An HON MEMBER: "So we can."] At any rate, between the present Government
of Ireland and the Government of this country I have no hesitation in saying where the choice would be.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I think the hon. Member is now going beyond the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I acknowledge that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have given me a fair amount of toleration. and I apologise for having gone outside your ruling. The point I was dealing with was one made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that we got no credit for the £300,000,000 we had paid extending over many years towards the defence of India. That £300,000,000 was paid with the consent of the British House of Commons, but the contribution which the Indians are being asked to make under this proposal is not being made with the consent of the Indian people or any Government representing them. I contend that we have no right to impose on the Indian people anything, whether it be good or bad, unless the Indian people have given their full consent, and unless it is done with a full knowledge of what they are being asked to consent to. Therefore, our Amendment is simply one asking that, if the Indian Navy be sent out of the Indian area, this country should pay for its use when the Navy is not being used for Indian purposes. We hear a good deal of talk about the sanctity of contracts, and we are told that we cannot reduce the interest on the War Loan because it would break a national bargain, but when you are asking for the use of the Indian Navy outside Indian waters you refuse to pay for that service. I think the Amendment ought to be supported, and I am surprised at the Noble Lord resisting such a reasonable proposal.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support the Amendment, and I cannot for the life of me understand the attitude of the Government on this matter. All we are asking is that when the British Navy use the Royal Indian Navy the British Government shall pay for its use. Surely we do not want it to go out to the world that we are a country of tyrants, and that the rulers of the British Empire, this great commonwealth of nations, consists of a body of men
who have set the heather on fire as far as the Royal Indian Navy is concerned. Surely you do not want to advertise to the world by opposing this Amendment that you are deliberately organising the Indian Navy not for the protection of India but for the use of the British Empire. By refusing this Amendment you are telling the workers that you are going to use the Indian Navy, and that in doing so you are not going to consider the Indians in any shape or form. I think for barefaced audacity this is absolutely the limit. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) says that the boys of the bulldog breed have defended this poor belated race known as "Indians" for a good many years, and that people of this poor type of humanity are not able to stand up and defend themselves against a fierce and warlike race which might come trooping down from the mountainous regions away in the North. I want the House to understand what we are really asking for by our Amendment. We are simply asking for a square deal, and that is the classic language of the Prime Minister. It has always been our duty and our privilege to defend the Indian race against the ruling classes of this country. What are the conditions that prevail in India? What is it that India has to defend? Why should they require a navy? I have here a Report of the conditions prevailing in Bombay, which is part of India, and it says—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Question before the House is not whether India requires a navy, but whether the words "Both Houses of Parliament" are to be left in this Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that you will not allow me to go the way I want to go, I wish to say that I desire to show up this despicable Government, and I should think that is quite in order. At any rate, if I were in the Chair it certainly would be in order, because I have -a bias against the Government—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until he gets in the Chair. For the moment, I am in the Chair, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue to make irrelevant remarks.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I listened carefully to the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for India, and I tried to get the point he was endeavouring to make. I do not think the Noble Lord was very convincing in the. position which he took up. As far as I could make out his explanation, it was that, if this Amendment were accepted, the Indian revenues could not be used by the Governor-General in Council in order to make a grant in connection with any special emergency or for some special purpose. An illustration has been given relating to the contribution that was made by India during the Great War. I do not think it follows at all, if the fact is definitely laid down, as this Amendment would lay it down, that this force is not to be used except for the purpose of Indian naval defence, that the charge involved in the use of this force is not to be borne by India unless with the consent of both Houses of Parliament here. It appears to me that this contribution by India, if there were a special emergency, might be made quite apart from being spent in this particular fashion in' connection with this Indian Naval Force. The financial contribution that India made during the Great War was not a distinctive contribution in regard to paying the wages of Indian soldiers, though evidently the hon. and gallant Member opposite thought that the sailors would not be able to get their wages unless this Amendment was defeated. None of those things follow at all. If Britain is going to use this Indian Navy for some of the purposes of the British Empire, then the British Government should arrange for the payment of the Navy in that respect. If this purpose of the British Empire were one that commended itself to the Indian people, if the naval and military commitments were such as to involve a big expenditure, and the Indian people thought it was of value to them as a part of the British Empire, there is nothing in this Amendment which would prevent it. I quite admit that it would prevent the expenditure of money specifically in connection with this Indian Naval Force, but it does not prevent the Indian Government from
contributing in a different form its share as one of the parts of the British Empire.
There would also be this advantage, if the Amendment were accepted by the Government, that, if India were called upon to make any contribution in connection with any serious trouble in which her forces were used, India would come in and make her contribution in the same way as any of the Dominions that make up the Commonwealth of the British Empire. India would be put into the same position as any of the great self-governing Dominions in this respect, in that her Navy could not be used at her expense on something that was an Imperial matter, and not specifically an Indian matter. I hope I have made it as lucid to the Nable Lord as he made it, when he was making his statement from the other point of view. Certainly, in view of this discussion, I think we should have a further reply from the Government on this important Amendment. It is the worst thing that the Government can do, in connection with their Indian policy, to be put in the position that this Indian Navy is going to be created at any time with the consent,

not of India, but of the Houses of Parliament here. India has got to pay the bill for the use of her Navy on something which does not concern India at all. It is about the worst thing, at least, so it seems to me, in connection with the difficulties we have got to face in view of the distrust that has been created in connection with our relationship to India. I do not mean to suggest that it is the worst thing this Government could do. My imagination could scarcely conceive the extraordinarily disagreeable things and the horrible depths to which this Government could go in its general policy; but, in connection with its Indian policy, I think it would be advisable, if the Noble Lord is concerned with the possibility of India making a contribution in an Imperial emergency in the future, that India should make her contribution quite apart from the consent of the Houses of Parliament in this country in regard to the use of the Indian Navy.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 126.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[6.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burcoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Albery, Irving James
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Eden, Captain Anthony


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Carver, Major W. H.
England, Colonel A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Balniel, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fermoy, Lord


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chlicott, Sir Warden
Forrest, W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston Spencer
Foster, Sir Henry S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Berry, Sir George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bethel, A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gates, Percy.


Blades, sir George Rowland
Cooper, A. Duff
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William
Goff, Sir Park


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greaves- Lord, Sir Walter


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brown, Col. D. C. (Nth'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks,Nawb'y)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bollock, Captain M.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hammersley, S. S.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacIntyre, Ian
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Harney, E. A.
McLean, Major A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Hartington, Marquess of
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Henry C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hawke, John Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henderson, Lieut -Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Meller, R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert,S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by]
Meyer, Sir Frank
Strauss, E. A.


Hills, Major John Walter
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Holland, Sir Arthur
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Templeton, W. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson,Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nuttall, Ellis
Tinne, J. A.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Perring, Sir William George
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waddington, R.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Philipson, Mabel
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on Hull)


Hurd, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watts, Dr. T.


Jacob, A. E.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wells, S. R.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Remer, J. R.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lamb, J. Q.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Withers, John James


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lougher, Lewis
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Lumley, L. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Colonel Cibbs and Mr. P. C Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ammon, Charles George
Connolly, M.
Hardie, George D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Day, Colonel Harry
Hayes, John Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barr, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bondfield, Margaret
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Broad, F, A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J.
Gosling, Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kelly, W. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kennedy, T.


Clowes, S
Groves, T.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.
Kirkwood, D.




Lansbury, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawson, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, F.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Townend, A. E.


Lindley, F. W.
Rose, Frank H.
Viant, S. P.


Lowth, T.
Salter, Or. Alfred
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mackinder, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wellock, Wilfred


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Westwood, J.


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mosley, Oswald
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, T. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Oliver, George Harold
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Sullivan, Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.
Wright, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Taylor, R. A.



Potts, John S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Purcell, A. A
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, on page 1, line 17, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words, "and of both Houses of the Indian Legislature."
I hope the Noble- Lord will not say he does not understand this Amendment. I think it is very clear. This is still on the question of the payment for the extra cost of the Indian Navy when employed away from Indian waters and outside the jurisdiction of the Indian Government. The House has just decided that where the consent of this House and another place has been obtained we can make the Indian revenues bear the cost of the Indian Navy, even when the Governor-General decides to put it at the disposal of the Admiralty and when it is used, in the terms of the next Sub-section, other than for the purposes of the Indian Government only. It will then read as follows:
Where any naval forces and vessels raised and provided by the Governor-General in Council are, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, placed at the disposal of the Admiralty the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament and of both Houses of the Indian Legislature, be applicable to defraying the expenses of those forces if and so long as they are not employed on Indian naval defence.
The political ancestors of the Noble Lord, not his lineal but his political ancestors, made the mistake of attempting to tax the colonists of New England without their consent, and the Tory party of that day, wiser in many respects than the Tory party of this day, nevertheless were so obstinate and stubborn that they lost us what is now the United States of
America. We on these benches, the guardians of the British Empire in its true sense—a Noble Lord below the Gangway whose political ancestors were on our side on that occasion, as they were great Whigs, laughs at that idea. I am sorry to say the Whig element in the Conservative party has not permeated the foreign and Imperial policy of that party. We in this case are the Imperialists who are trying to safeguard the British Empire. There is no case where in practice we insist on the Indian revenues bearing the cost of the Navy in these circumstances. Therefore, I see no reason why the Under-Secretary should not be prepared to accept this Amendment. If we are prepared in particular circumstances to say the Indian revenues must bear the cost of the Navy, even although the Admiralty uses it for its own purposes, then at least consult the Indian Legislature.
That is our very reasonable Amendment. The party of Morley and Montagu and other great liberators of India surely would have supported us had they been here, but they are not here. Perhaps Borne of my hon. Friends will meet them outside when the division bell rings and tell them if Morley and Montagu had been here they would surely have voted with us on this occasion. I hope the Noble Lord will not use that argument about the Indian Army. I believe the Indian troops at present being used in ' China are all paid for eventually by this House. I do not know that the matter is finally settled, but I think we shall be paying for those troops. As a matter of fact, there have been protests in India
against the use of Indian troops in Shanghai. I think it is a horrible spectacle to see the troops of one Asiatic people, and Naval forces when they are in existence, used against another Asiatic people under the control of a Western Power. To get the willing service of India in a time of great emergency—and it will only be in a time of great emergency that you will use this small Navy —you must have the consent of the Indian Legislature for its use, and therefore, ipso facto, you pay India for it. I really do not see why the India Office cannot accept the Amendment. When India was tested in 1914, she came nobly to the assistance of the Empire. Why not trust them? You have these legislatures in India functioning here and there with difficulty, but nevertheless, assisted by the Secretary for India, they are making great progress. Why not give them the responsibility of deciding whether under these circumstances the Indian Navy shall be paid for by the Indian revenues? That is all we ask. It is a most reasonable proposal, and I ask the Government to accept it in the spirit in which I put it forward. I am not putting it forward to wreck the Bill. I want to see this Navy become a symbol of Indian liberty in time. I ask the Government to accept the Amendment in that spirit.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
This change will do something to remove the bad effect of not passing the last Amendment. I wish hon. Members would look on India for a few minutes as though it was Australia or any other of the self - governing Dominions. Suppose we were legislating about Australia, suppose we really wanted to get financial help if we were in a difficult position, would it not be infinitely easier to get that assistance if we showed them, in legislation such as this, that we trusted them, that we wanted their help, and that we did not want to command that help but to get the only help that is of any value, real voluntary assistance? What we say at present is that the British Government, when the Indian Navy is used outside Indian waters, can, if it so chooses, put the cost of that upon the Indian people. We have never done so in the case of
the Indian Army, and we probably should never do so in the case of the Navy. But the very fact that we state definitely in our Act of Parliament that we can at any moment force the Indians to pay, naturally deprives them of any incentive to pay. We submit that, if we omit these words that payment shall be made by the Indian people instead of by the British people in certain special cases if the Navy is used not for Indian but for general purposes, it will make it far more possible for those services to be paid for by the Indian people. We make it more possible, because, if you judge the Indians by the standard of any of our three Dominions, everyone will realise that the Indian Legislature will be far more likely to give us this assistance than if we compulsorily take that assistance under the Bill as it stands. I do not believe the Noble Lord can possibly envisage any circumstances in which the British Government would ask the Indian people to pay for the use of their Fleet outside Indian waters. I do not believe he could conceive of a case where we should demand from Australia that when Australian troops are offered voluntarily to the Empire the cost should fall upon the Australians. There have been endless cases where the Australians and Canadians have paid for their troops, but they would never have done so if we had demanded it or had the right to demand it and deprive them of the right of giving it.
What we want is that India, like the rest of the Dominions, shall have the right to give, and the right to give, in war, is going to be much more valuable for the British Union than the right to demand. If we imagined that India was going to endure under its present Constitution for ever and that we were to have for all time the Government of India Act of 1919 perpetually governing the relations between this country and India, then, indeed, it is conceivable, looked at from the autocratic point of view, that it might be desirable to deprive India of any voice in this matter, but there is not a Member of the House who does not know perfectly well that the relations between this country and India are in the melting pot and that sooner or later the Government of India Act which we are amending to-day will be far more radically amended, and
sooner or later India will take its place beside the other self-governing Dominions of the British Union; and, that being so, is it wise, is it necessary, to draft your amending Act in connection with the Navy in such a way as must necessarily make it more difficult for the Indian Legislature in the future to come to our assistance voluntarily in any particular crisis? Our relations with India in future must depend upon mutual trust and confidence. If they are to depend upon Acts of Parliament-like this, you will get exactly the reverse of the results the Noble Lord and we ourselves want to obtain. The trust of India can only be secured for the people of this country so long as we show that we have trust in them, and that we rely upon them to help us if need be, and that we cannot command their assistance. That is the basis of our new relations. I beg the Noble Lord to consider whether it is not possible to accept this Amendment, which will make no difference during the few short years of the present form of the Indian Constitution. Can he not accept this as an indication to the Indian people of our confidence in them, to lay down a plank upon which the future self-governing Dominion can work in co-operation, in self-respecting co-operation, with the British people and with the rest of the British Empire?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can we not have some reply from the Noble Lord on the very important points raised by the hon. and gallant Members from this side? I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should have thought that the Amendment would have appealed to the Noble Lord's sense of justice and to his democratic sense, and that he would have accepted this very mild Amendment. Both hon. and gallant Members have put their case very ably and reasonably. They are in favour of the Indian Navy, but I am not. Surely there might have been some compromise on the part of the Noble Lord to have encouraged these hon. and gallant Members in their support of the Indian Navy.

Earl WINTERTON: I had intended to rise when I saw the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on his feet.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not think the Noble Lord was going to rise. Had I thought that he intended to reply I would not have intervened.

Earl WINTERTON: It was a mistake on both our parts. I saw the hon. Member on his feet, and I did not want to stand in his way. I certainly intended to reply to the very interesting speech from the right hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) who moved the Amendment. I can give my answer very shortly. Most of us, in all quarters of the House, would agree very largely with the general considerations which the right hon. Member urged, but where we on this side would differ from him would be in saying that these general considerations applied to this particular Amendment, or were raised in any form by the Sub-section which we are discussing. Although I am not hopeful that I shall be able to persuade him that I am right, it seems to me that, if this Amendment were adopted, it would not be regarded in India as the gesture of goodwill which he seems to think it would be. On the other hand, if we do not adopt the Amendment, there is nothing in the Sub-section, as it stands, which would offend in any degree the susceptibilities of the Indian people. That was the main burden of his speech. If I am wrong and he is right, there would be a reason for adopting the Amendment, but there is no reason. The very important question of principle which he raised is not affected or raised by this Clause. It has never been pretended at the present transition stage of the Indian Constitution that India, through her Assembly, has full control over the revenues of India. It has never been pretended by us that she has, and, except for a very few Indians, there is no demand that that control should be given at this moment. I must not, however, get on to the wider subject. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be a Commission of Inquiry into the whole question of the relations of this House to India. Until that Commission is appointed, and the whole question is gone into, it seems to me that any Government bringing forward any proposal of this kind—if the right hon. Gentleman had been the Secretary of State for India, I believe he would have done the same thing—would apply to the new Indian Navy exactly the same provisions and form of procedure as are applied to the existing Indian Army. As I said in
reply to the previous Amendments, all the Amendments moved from the benches opposite would put the Indian Navy in an absolutely different position from that in which the Army stands to-day. Let me read the position in which the Army stands. Under Section 22 of the Government of India Act, it is provided that:
Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of His Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defraying the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of those possessions by His Majesty's Forces charged upon those revenues.
We have had a very good-humoured Debate, and, as the point raised in this Amendment is not a fresh point, I hope the House will be prepared to come to a decision upon it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am afraid that, as on the last Amendment, it is necessary to draw the attention of the Noble Lord to the meaning of the Amendment under discussion. He pretends with, I hope, an assumed innocence, not to understand the implications of the proposal before the House. He thinks that he has disposed of the principle of the Amendment by the Division which took place a few minutes ago. What is asked for in this Amendment, as I understand it, is that both Houses of the Indian Legislature on this point should be put on terms of equality with the Houses of Parliament here. The property we are dealing with is Indian property, the Indian Navy, and the Opposition submit to the Government a reasonable proposition that in dealing with their own property the Indian people, in so far as they are represented in the Indian Legislature, should have the same voice as is claimed by the Houses of Parliament representing the people who will be confiscating that Navy. I agree with the Noble Lord that the Houses of Legislature in India no more represent the Indians than we represent the Indian people, but we have to think ahead.
The world is changing very rapidly, and it is changing very rapidly as the result of the despotic policy propagated and practised by this Conservative Government. We may reasonably hope that in the future we shall have a Legislature
in India really representative of the Indian people, but we cannot afford to be running the risk of a quarrel with about the only friend we have in the East. We are not particularly strong in friendly attachments with the peoples in the Eastern part of the world; we are chopping them off one by one, but we have still the Indians left. It seems to me as if Providence had provided us with a mad Government in order that we might destroy the one friendly link that exists between the East and the West. What we are claiming here is mere elementary justice, that people should have equal rights in the disposal of their own property or, as it happens to be here, in regard to payment for that property during the time that it is being used by the people who have taken possession of it. We are claiming that we should approach India upon this and every other question in a spirit of friendship rather than in the spirit of the bully. In the long run, from the Conservative point of view, that would be a very profitable policy to be used. One can easily contemplate that if this Conservative policy is to be pursued, this Indian Navy in the very near future may be used against Indian Soviets, and it may be used against Indian Soviets under the command of this Government, and the Indian people will be compelled to pay for their own destruction. That is an unreasonable and untenable position to be assumed by any party claiming to be fit to govern.
We have a case which may serve somewhat as an analogy in regard to our relations with the Irish Free State Army. In setting up the Free State in Ireland we did not in regard to the 25,000 troops, or whatever was the size of the Army which we allowed those free people to organise, while we were granting them their so-called liberty, go the length of suggesting to them that if we required to use the Army against Ireland in the future, we would retain the power to make them pay for it whilst we were using it against them. We did not claim that right with Ireland but we claim it with India. We go on stupidly insisting upon doing the wrong thing, until we are right up to the verge of ruin. Conservative policy in the past has always led us there. It has led us there industrially, it has led us there politically. We only
protest friendship to people when they are in arms against us. We never adopt the wiser policy of utilising the time of peace and friendship to lay the foundations of greater peace and greater friendship. I hope that the Government, even now, may spend a few minutes in considering what this Amendment means, and the spirit that it would indicate to the Indian people if they did accept it and incorporate it in the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise to answer one or two points made by the Noble Lord in defending the Bill in its present form. He says that the analogy of the Army must be followed, and that it would be improper to deal with the Indian Navy in a way different from the way in which we deal with the Indian Army. That is a very hollow argument. I do not think it follows that the precise method of dealing with the financial questions in the Army should necessarily be followed in the case of the Navy. If I am not mistaken, the method of dealing with the Army is contained in the Government of India Act itself. A good deal of time has gone by since that Act was put forward, and, if we have to consider the whole matter de novo in the case of the Navy, it does not seem to follow that we are bound to adopt slavishly that precise model in dealing with the Navy. In the second place, he claims that we have no business to alter the Government of India Act because a Commission is being set up. This Bill itself is an alteration of the Government of India Act, for we are making a change in order to create this Indian Navy and, that being so, it is a perfectly proper proceeding to modify the method of handling this service when we are constructing this new idea of an Indian Navy.
In the third place, he argues that in the Government of India Act we have not given power over finance or control over the forces of the Crown to the Indian Legislature and, therefore, there is no reason why we should give them the power proposed by this Amendment. That argument does not apply in this case. In the Amendment we are not giving them control over their navy, we are merely saying that when the Governor-General considers that a state of emergency exists, and it has been decided that the navy shall be put at the disposal of this country, then the cost of
that navy shall not continue to fall upon the Indian people unless the sanction of both Houses of Parliament and the Indian Legislature is given. That does not confer the wide powers which the Noble Lord thinks is inconsistent with the Government of India Act and, therefore, that argument falls to the ground. It is only reasonable that provision should be made whereby the Indian people are not saddled with a burden for which they are in no way responsible. I think the Noble Lord is taking up an unnecessarily obstinate point of view in resisting this Amendment. This is perhaps the most reasonable of all the Amendments we are putting forward, and if he continues to resist it he will be doing something which will be strongly resented among all sections of the Indian people which are vocal on this question.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to add one word to what has been already said from these benches. In this Bill we are asking that the Indian people shall make a contribution to the British Navy. We are asking them to find the money for their navy, and then they are to have no further control whatever over it. We are to control the whole thing. If I know anything of the condition of the Indian people, after hearing it described in this House and reading of it in various publications, it seems to me that when the Indian people have paid for the cost of the British administration and the cost of the Army in India there is very little left them to pay for the navy. I fail to see what the Indian people are going to gain from the expenditure they have to make. It is an outrageous thing that the poverty-stricken Indian peasants, who have to live on one meal a day, with not enough calico to properly clothe themselves, short of houses and short of food, should be taxed still further in order to provide an additional support to the Empire which has kept them poor, and which has exploited them all through the ages. This House will be false to its duty and to its professions of friendship to the Indian people if it insists upon passing a Measure of this description without accepting the Amendment which has been proposed, and which would give them some voice as to the way in which the navy for which they pay shall be used. That is the crux of the whole question. The Indian people,
if they are compelled to pay for a navy, should have some voice as to the way in which it is used.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 272.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[6.52 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bllston)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Oswald
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben



Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Briscoe, Richard George
Colfox, Major William Phillips


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cooper, A. Duff


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cope, Major William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Couper, J. B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Apsley, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Atholl, Duchess of
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Atkinson, C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Calne, Gordon Hall
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Berry, Sir George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Bethel, A.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Betterton, Henry B,
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
England, Colonel A.


Blundell, F. N.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Clayton, G. C.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. VI.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rye, F. G.


Fermoy, Lord
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Forrest, W.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Savery, S. S.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lougher, Lewis
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Goff, Sir Park
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacIntyre, I.
Smithers, Waldron


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
McLean, Major A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greene, W. P, Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B.
Strauss, E. A.


Hall, Capt. W D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hanbury, C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, F. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hartington, Marquess of
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Haslam, Henry c
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Sir Newton J,
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waddington, R.


Herbert,S. (York, N.R. Scar.& Wh'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson,Col.Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nuttall, Ellis
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Perring, Sir William George
Wells, S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hopkinson, sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Phillipson, Mabel
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonol C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raine, W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hurst, Gerald B.
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jacob, A. E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Jones, G. W. H, (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ropner, Major L.
Barnston.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Earl Winterton.]

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to take this opportunity of entering a most emphatic protest against the provisions of this Measure. I do not know what case was or could be made out for an Indian Navy, but I know that no case can be made out for an Indian Navy which is not under the control of the Indian people. What we are asked to do here is simply
farcical. We are asked to subscribe to a situation in which there will be an Indian Navy which may be taken away by the very people, who in certain conceivable circumstances may be India's chief enemy, and used by these people, while they retain in their power the right to say who is to pay for the Navy during the time it is being used without the consent of the Indian people. I have never seen a situation that revealed to a greater extent the fraudulent character
of what we call native government, or self-government when we are using euphonious terms. In those circumstances, that we should talk of India having to the slightest extent control of its own forces is simply to misuse words.
I am deadly opposed to the whole principle that lies behind this Bill, and I wish to enter my strongest protest against it. India has not benefited from British rule to an extent that would justify us in imposing on it the financial conditions embodied in this Measure. India, as I understand it—I have never had the opportunity of studying it at first hand—is to-day one of the poorest parts of the earth. Whatever blessings we have brought to India, we have certainly not brought the blessings of prosperity. Yet it is on these poor people that we, the richest part of the world, are attempting to impose what is obviously an unjust financial obligation and, while pretending to be giving them a say in their own affairs, we are depriving them of the most elementary part of local government. What would we think of a state of affairs in which we here in Britain, if we were what I might term the junior partner in this commonwealth of nations, had it laid down to us by India that we might have a British Navy with the consent of India, but that, while granting us that concession, she reserved the right to take that Navy when she willed and to use it in whatever way she willed, and only by the consent of India were we to be relieved of the obligation to meet the cost of the Navy during the time it was in India's possession. Why all our blood would revolt against the indignity of the proposition. After all that is what we are attempting to impose on India. If there be anything in this popular habit of talking about the constituent parts of the British Empire as being brothers in arms, or brothers in worldly prosperity, or brothers in the battle for freedom, surely we should not have to wait until we are forced by a militarily weak constituent part to grant it elementary justice,, before we will grant it.
I wish to repeat something I said on the discussion of one of these Amendments, that it is absolutely foolish policy to be always insisting on our pound of flesh during the fraternal period of our relations with other members of the
Empire. I wish we would get it out of our minds that we here are the Empire. It is the party opposite who are continually lecturing us and telling us to remember that the British Empire is something much greater than Britain. If the British Empire is something much greater than Britain, then Britain should not be always availing itself of the opportunity to impose its individual will on every part of this greater British Empire. If we believe that there is anything except the relationship of the master to the slave binding these constituent parts into what we sometimes call a commonwealth, then we should be prepared here and there to make little concessions to the spirit of fraternity and to the spirit of brotherhood.
There is not much being claimed here. It is not being claimed that India should be placed in a privileged position in relation to Great Britain within the Empire. All that is really being claimed is that, within the administration and the financing of their own property, they should have an equal voice with us. The claim seems so elementary that I cannot understand the party opposite rejecting it, but they do reject it because in their heart they show people that there is nothing like a relationship or equality or a spirit of brotherhood or equal intellect existing between these various parts at all. They believe in holding India by the sword, as they have always held it. They believe in imposing their will, which they believe to be a superior will,, on these people whom they regard as a backward section of the world's population. If there be any justification at all for Imperialism, surely it carries with it the obligation to contribute something to the intellectual elevation of the people over whom you have established your military control. You are not contributing anything when you refuse to grant them any say in their own government, which can be safely done without any risk to the Empire or any part of the Empire. This Bill is, in my opinion, in spirit totally backward, and I will be very sorry to see it get the approval of this House.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to support my right hon. Friend in opposition to this Bill. I have listened with very great care to the discussions that have taken place on the earlier stages of the Bill,
and I am absolutely at a loss still to find out what the reasons are for producing this Measure at this time. The British connection with India goes back for a very considerable period. It is, in fact, a matter of centuries. The Noble Lord, in opposing some of the Amendments, said that this is to be a Navy in the same position as the Indian Army. I do not understand yet the reasons why we, having managed all these hundreds of years with an Army alone, should now have to introduce a Navy as well. It seems to me quite out of keeping with what is supposed to be the world trend now in the direction of peace. It seems to me a provocative step in the East, which will not bring any good reactions to the standing of Great Britain among the various populations that inhabit the East. For these reasons and for the additional reasons given by my right hon. Friend, that the whole nature of the Bill and the whole of its provisions are framed on the conception that the Indian, if a partner in the British Empire, is a very inferior and a very junior partner, I am proposing to resist this Bill having a Third Reading.

Mr. AMMON: I very much regret that I have to declare that I shall advise my friends to vote against the Third Heading of the Bill. We have tried again and again throughout these discussions to get some Amendments accepted in order that we may show that it is indeed a Bill for an Indian Navy. We have tried to get the Government to agree to show that there is some attempt to admit the Indian people into proper co-partnership and consultation in the use of this Navy, and in regard to the money it will cost. It is because we have failed to get any acceptance of those Amendments or any advance towards the approaches we have made, which would give a real earnest that there was an intention to make this an approach to India self-government and to giving them a larger share in their own affairs, that very reluctantly we shall he obliged to vote against the Third Reading.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I feel that perhaps one word of explanation is necessary in regard to the speech made by the last speaker. I would point out to the House
that the opposition to this Bill is based on something wholly wrong. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has seized the opportunity to accuse this party and everybody who has ever been connected with the Conservative party of having no object whatever except to live or batten upon the Indian people. Of course, it is perfectly unnecessary to drag such a futile statement into Debate when the whole point of this Bill is to carry out what is the acknowledged policy of His Majesty's Government and the British people, and that is by degrees to give to the Indian people more and more self-government and more and more interest in their own defence. I would point out to the House that at the present time the whole naval defence of India lies in the hands of the British Admiralty, and the object of this Bill is by degrees to take from the British Admiralty the responsibility for looking after the naval defence of India and to give it to the Indian people. By degrees it is no doubt the intention of the British people to give to the Indian people self-government, but you cannot do that in the twinkling of an eye. The hon. Members opposite compare the position of the Indian people to that of the great Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They must know as well as we know that you cannot compare the relative positions of those peoples at the present time.

Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. and gallant Member permit me to say that that side of the argument was first introduced by the Noble Lord who, in rebutting an argument, said that Australia and New Zealand would resent any such odious comparisons? It was on that line that we endeavoured to get the Noble Lord to accept our Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have listened to the whole Debate and if the hon. Member had done so he would know that my Noble Friend—

Mr. AMMON: What do you mean? The hon. and gallant Member is at fault. I have been in charge on this side from the time the House met, and I have not stirred from this Box.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If that be the case, I apologise to the hon. Member. I was sitting here and he was sitting
there, and we both sit very low in our seats and I never saw him. The whole attitude of the party opposite has been to try and show that we are trying to keep the Indian people in subjection. Let me emphasise once again that the policy which this Bill illustrates is one more stage in entrusting to the Indians the task of their own self-government and their own defence. How long it will take for us to look upon the Indian Empire as a self-governing Dominion depends very largely upon the caution and the care with which we take each step in the process of change. If hon. Members opposite attempt to advance too rapidly they are in danger of defeating their own object. When they describe this Bill as they do, they are exaggerating profoundly and giving an entirely false impression not only in this country but to India, and are probably doing a great deal more harm to the object that they have in view than if they adopted an attitude that was saner, sounder and fairer.

Mr. BARKER: Unfortunately, I have not been able to be present throughout the Debate, but I am astonished to hear the Government say that they are creating this Navy for the purpose of giving self-government to India. That is the most hypocritical statement that could possibly be made. Why are they creating this Navy for India? Because it is

a long way from here to Singapore. The Government are not honest with the House. They should tell the House that they are creating this Navy to supplement the base at Singapore. To say that it is being done in order to give Home Rule to India—

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I did not say that. I said that this Bill was one further stage in a policy which this country has adopted of bringing India by degrees into the same position as the other Dominions.

Mr. BARKER: The Singapore policy may be right or wrong. At any rate it would be honest for the Government to say why it is bringing in this Measure? It is an insult to the Indian people to say that we are creating this Navy for the purpose of giving prestige to India. It is sheer humbug and the Government know it very well. The object is to defend this country against Japan and to use the Indian people for that purpose. If the Government were honest they would say so. But they are not honest. They are trying to cloak this Measure, and I am glad that I am in the House to vote against it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided Ayes, 256; Noes, 122.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Burman, J. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, E. T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Atkinson, C.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Bainlel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Barclay. Harvey, C. M.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
England, Colonel A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Everard, W. Lindsay


Berry, Sir George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bethel, A.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cope, Major William
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Couper, J. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gates, Percy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
MacIntyre, I.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smithers Waldron


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley.Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.)


Hanbury, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Malone, Major P. B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strauss, E. A.


Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. D.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Haslam, Henry C.
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hawke, John Anthony
Merriman. F. B.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hilton, Cecil
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holland, Sir Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K.P.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waddington, R.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wallace, Captain O. E.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrslld.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Perring, Sir William George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)
Phillpson, Mabel
Wells, S. R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Raine, W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jacob, A. E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reimer, J. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rentoul, G. S.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U
Wolmer. Viscount


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Womersley, W. J.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.



Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.--


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rye, F. G.
Captain Lord Stanley and Mr.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.
Penny.


Lougher, Lewis
Sandeman, N. Stewart



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dennison, R.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Duncan, C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Ammon, Charles George
Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Eillston)
Gardner, J. P.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Baker, Walter
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Barnes, A.
Gosling, Harry
Kennedy, T.


Barr, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lt-.Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Kirkwood, D.


Bondfield, Margaret
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lansbury, George


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Bromley, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Groves, T.
Lee, F.


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, T. W.
Lindley, F. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Cluse, W. S.
Hardle, George D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mackinder, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Connolly, M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Maxton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)


Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Montague, Frederick




Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snell, Harry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Mosley, Oswald
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Naylor. T. E.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Rlley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, W.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sexton, James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Windsor, Walter


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wright, W.


Sitch, Charles H.
Tinker, John Joseph



Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Townend, A. E,
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Reconstitution of Pacific Cable Board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of the Board.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have no intention of opposing this Clause. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is the intention of the Labour party to oppose any provision of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) and other colleagues took part in the Second Reading Debate and clearly indicated what was the attitude of the Labour party towards the Bill. I want to say a few words about this Clause and its bearing on the general principle of the Bill. On the Second Reading the fact was stressed that this was a Socialist Measure. Both the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham emphasised the fact that the provisions of the Bill had been agreed to, at least in the main, by the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Labour Government. I desire to show how the Socialist principle embodied in this Bill is applied, following the lines of an agreement made by the Labour Government. When any suggestion is made about extending the principle of Socialism, we are told by hon. Members opposite that it cannot be done unless we go on the lines of bureaucratic control. They say that the indus-
try concerned must be dominated by an army of Government officials and they contend that in these circumstances all industry must be strangled by red tape. We have in this Clause a simple method of avoiding that which is being adopted in this Bill, which has been agreed to by a Labour Minister, and which has been accepted by a Conservative Minister. The Clause shows that there is really no necessity, when applying Socialist principles, either to strangle industry with red tape or to have a huge army of Government officials. One need only read this Clause to see that such is the case:
The Board shall be charged with the control, management, maintenance and working of the cables constructed under the said Acts, and may construct and work any extensions, connections, and rearrangements, whether by way of cable or wireless telegraphy, in or near the Pacific Ocean which are necessary or expedient for the improvement of the Board's undertaking.
The Board provided for in this Bill is to all intents and purposes equivalent to the board of directors of a private enterprise. They are as free as any board of directors and are as fully endowed with powers as a board of directors, the only difference being that under this Bill all profit which accrues from the industry, accrues to the public generally. After the next General Election I have no doubt we shall have a Labour Government. When that event takes place we shall be introducing a long series of Bills extending the principle of Socialism; and I rise on the present occasion merely for the purpose of pointing out that when, in future, we talk about applying this principle we are thinking not of a big army of officials, not about red tape, but about applying the Socialist principle as is done in this Bill. In the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member for Bridgeton
(Mr. Maxton) asked whether this Bill really did strangle industry or whether the board had reasonable freedom of action under it, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in charge said:
That is so. It conducts the ordinary business of the Pacific cable as a commercial undertaking without interference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1927; col. 1303, Vol. 204.]
We have been saying from these benches for a long time that there is no reason why we should not extend this principle and carry on great Socialised enterprises and industries in this country just as it is proposed to supply this great public service—on exactly the same lines as commercial enterprises and undertakings and without any interference from outside. We have here an organisation which was set up more than a quarter of a century ago. From time to time, by Act of Parliament, its activities have been extended and its authority widened. Under this Bill, after 25 years' experience of the working of Socialism in this direction, a Conservative Government comes along and says to the men who are to form this Board, "We confer upon you authority to manage and control completely, in the interests of the Governments concerned, this great public service," and that is to be done without any red tape at all. We realise that the principle of this Bill tends in the direction in which we seek to promote legislation. The machinery of its operation is on lines of which we heartily approve and I think I can say, speaking for myself and my colleagues, that we shall not oppose this or any of the subsequent Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: There is one aspect of this Bill which justifies us in seeking to elucidate as far as possible the meaning of its contents before it passes from us. When this Measure leaves us, as far as I can see, our control over this Board will be gone for ever. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken dwelt on the Socialist character of this scheme; but I think it differs from ordinary socialisation on the point to which I have referred. If we were dealing with socialised mines, for example, presumably we would get periodic reports from a responsible Department which would enable us to discuss the policy, the proceedings and the prospects of the concern. I am not aware, however, of
any provision which enables us to follow in the future the Board to which we are granting to-night such important powers. That is my justification for intervening. I wish to get a little more information on the Clause now before us. One only requires to read it in order to see the extent of the powers conferred. The Board may do anything in the way of expenditure, and I wish to know from the Minister if any limit is being set to the capital expenditure which may be undertaken by the Board. That is very important, because I am not confident that this will be a paying proposition. All my experience and all my study of the Conservative attitude towards private and public control, lead me to the contrary view.
If any substantial profit were to be made out of this concern it is unlikely that a Conservative Government would display such enthusiasm for Socialism. While denouncing Socialism in the most vigorous and eloquent terms, Conservatives are always prepared to employ it as a nurse for unprofitable industries. For instance, they will allow you to socialise the Army because no one can make a profit out of running an army. They never advocate the formation of a company to run the Navy, because in the running of a navy there is no prospect of a 10 per cent. dividend. I assume that in the same way we are getting public ownership of these cables because it is unlikely that a private company would be able to exercise profitably such ownership. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in the course of a former discussion on this Bill, said the Board was being constructed for service and not for profit. That does credit to his study of Socialist literature, because one of the claims usually put forward by Socialist teachers or propagandists is that the necessary industries of the nation should be run for the use of the nation and not for the profit of a section of the community. Again, it is that very enthusiasm for national service, as apart from private profit, which leads me to think here that we are being given the baby to hold. That is all the more reason why we should receive from the Government here and now all the information which they can place at our disposal as to what steps they have taken to secure us against extravagant
expenditure on what is bound to be an unprofitable undertaking. I hope the Minister will be perfectly frank with the Committee and will let us know how far it is safe to give these powers to a Board which in the future will be uncontrolled, and particularly how far it is safe to give it what appear to be almost unlimited powers in finance.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I do not think it is necessary for me on this Clause to enter into a general disquisition on the relative advantages of State ownership or private ownership. All I would say in answer to the interesting remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) is that this Clause does not represent merely the result of the negotiations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) three years ago. It is a brief summary of the provisions which have governed the management of the Pacific cable system ever since 1901. We are merely renewing those general provisions The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) suggested that this matter has been undertaken by the Government, because it is bound to be unprofitable. That is not the reason. Government ownership of this undertaking, for strategic and other reasons, is akin to that Government ownership of instruments of defence, which is, of course, a commonplace among nations. Further, there was the desire to secure a cheaper Press service and a cheaper general public service. But, so far from this being an unprofitable undertaking, it has been a very profitable one, and one of the chief reasons for the present Measure is to make suitable arrangements for dealing with the surplus profits. The view of the Government, if I may repeat a phrase which was quoted in a summarised form by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, is that it is more important to use those profits for the improvement of the system and the general service of the public, than to parcel them out among the constituents of the Board. Lastly, I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that the powers of the Board are unlimited. They can only undertake any of the kind of expenditure
to which he referred, except the ordinary everyday working of the lines, by the con sent of all the partner Governments as mentioned in this Clause, and, of course, the various Governments in considering the matter will naturally not encourage extravagance or schemes which do not hold out a reasonable prospect of success.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point which is worrying me with regard to this Clause is the question of control over the policy of the Board. What I am thinking of more particularly is this: Assuming a difference arises between the workpeople and the Board, have the men any appeal other than to the Board themselves? Are the Board the final people to deal with the employés, or can the employés raise the question, say, in this House? It seems to me it is very difficult for any employé to raise any question once the Board have decided against them. Has this House any control over the Board as far as the workpeople are concerned, or is the Board the last word?

Mr. AMERY: The Board, as the right hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) pointed out, works like a private corporation and is not a mere Department; therefore it has direct control over the salaries and conditions of each of its employés. On the other hand, as the contributions of the Government towards the expenses will come up in this House, that, of course, affords a perfectly open occasion for any Member of the House who has reason to believe that the conditions of employment are not satisfactory, to raise that point, and to press this Government as one of the partners to secure an amendment through their representatives on the Board.

Mr. WHEATLEY: But the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to my observations on the Bill, pointed out that we were not likely to require from this House much in the way of financial contributions. Assuming we are only distributing profits here, and investing them for the extension of the concern, and that they could go on without any outside financial aid for a number of years, am I to take it that during those years the House of Commons would have no opportunity whatever of discussing the proceedings of the Board as regards their management and control of the concern?

Mr. AMERY: Certainly not. The British Government have their representatives on the Board, and it is always open to any Member of the House to address questions in respect of these matters, and, if they are dissatisfied, to get an opportunity to discuss them. There are several alternative ways by means of which questions affecting either the business control or the conditions of employment can be raised in this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have safeguarded the conditions of the employés more than they are safeguarded? I agree that with regard to raising the question in Parliament, there is nothing that an ingenious person cannot do in that respect once he sets his mind to it. Rules are always being invented to keep back the ingenious person, but I fancy a Member who is ingenious enough will be able to find some way. Our fear, however, is not so much that we should not be able to find a way, but that the limits of raising it are very narrow considering the pressure of Parliamentary time. It is not a question like the Post Office Vote, and other Votes, because of its smallness. The right hon. Gentleman who, I am sure, wants to meet us on this point, might have drafted in the Bill some words to safeguard the conditions of the employés. We have the impression—it may be a wrong one—that this Board may not give to the employés that fair treatment which we, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, desire. Therefore, cannot an Amendment be made to the Bill to safeguard the conditions of the employés? We do not want to see a wrangle between the various Governments as to these conditions, and one would have thought the right hon. Gentleman could have found some method of safeguarding them. He knows that on the last occasion we debated this the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) pointed out how the Board's salaries were safeguarded, and it ought to be possible to give some safeguard in the Bill regarding the employés.

Mr. AMERY: I think I pointed out to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) the other day that the salaries of the Board are not safeguarded. What are safeguarded are the interests of the contributory Governments by limiting the amount the Board may distribute to its
chairman and members to a maximum figure, I also took occasion to point out that the conditions of employment under the Board are, I think, in every way satisfactory. I also pointed out that the conditions in the different parts of the world where the Board is operating are so various that it would be quite impossible to fix any single standard. I think that must be left to the discretion of the Board, together with the influence upon it of the representatives of the Governments concerned, with their Parliaments behind them. I am quite sure if there were any reason for considering that the conditions of employment under the Board were unsatisfactory, there would be no difficulty at all, and no great ingenuity would be required on the part of any Member in raising the matter in this House. At any rate, as far as this Government is concerned—it must be remembered that this is a partnership venture, and we cannot have complete control—we should endeavour to secure through our representatives any alterations which Parliament might desire. Further, this Bill has been textually agreed with the Governments concerned, and therefore, unless there were a very powerful case for an alteration, on which we could get an agreement with the other Governments, I hope the Committee will leave the matter on the clear understanding I have given.

Mr. DUNCAN: Do not the salaries of the Board come upon the Estimates, and would it not be open to raise the whole question?

Mr. AMERY: No, the salaries of the Board would not come under the Estimates, but any contribution or expenditure would have to be sanctioned by this House.

Mr. KELLY: This question of the conditions of employment is a serious one, and when appointments are made to the Board, will regard be had to that matter so that we may feel secure that whoever is appointed to represent this country will have knowledge of labour conditions, and, indeed, be sympathetic in the matter of labour conditions?

Mr. AMERY: I am sure the hon. Member's point will be kept in mind.

Clauses 3 (Application of receipts and surpluses,) 4 (Application of reserve fund,) 5 (Deficiencies,) 6 (Application of sums paid to Government in United Kingdom), 7 (Accounts and audit,) and 8 (Subsidiary powers of Board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Short title, commencement and repeal.)

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the words "come into force on," and to insert instead thereof the words "be deemed to have had effect as from."
This and the next Amendment on the Order Paper are purely drafting Amendments. The Bill was originally drafted on the supposition that it would pass before the 1st April, and this Amendment is necessary in order to enable the Bill to take effect as from the 1st April.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am very doubtful about giving the Government retrospective power in a Measure such as this. When discussing Clause 2, a question was raised as to the conditions under which the workers will be employed. No reference was made to the question of trade unions. May we have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the employés of this Board will be free to join a trade union? Will they come under the restrictions which it is proposed to impose on British workers?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question has any relation to this particular Amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution of this Board.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wanted to ascertain from His Majesty's Government their views on the question of trade unionism before the date for the Bill coming into operation is postponed. I would not object to giving them powers, if we had an asurance from the Government, that their attitude towards trade unionism would remain as in the past. But there is a rumour that the Government intend to apply other methods in dealing with the workers in the future.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the date when this Bill comes into operation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I only rise to enter a protest on one point. I cannot be taken as assenting to retrospective legislation. I do not want it to be said against us on these benches that we consented to retrospective legislation, which we have always strenuously opposed.

Mr. AMERY: From the point of view of the detailed financial arrangements covered by the earlier Clauses, it will be very much more convenient if the new Board starts at the beginning of the new financial year. This is purely a matter of convenience, in considering what is regarded as the starting point of the new Board, and is not in the ordinary sense retrospective legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, at the end, to add the words
and that until reconstituted in accordance with this Act the Board as constituted at the commencement of this Act shall be the Board for the purposes of this Act.
This Amendment is for practically the same purpose as the last.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to ask a question on this Schedule. I wish to know how the share which is payable by His Majesty's Government has been arrived at. I sec that His Majesty's Government pay 5/18ths of the cost, and Canada pays the same, while Australia pays 6/18ths. I should have thought that Great Britain would have been the largest contributor, but Australia seems to be the biggest.

Mr. AMERY: These proportions were the outcome of negotiations between the different Governments as far back as the late '90's. I think each of the Australian States took a share, and the view then was that the interest of Australia and New Zealand in the cable was in some ways the largest. On that basis, the different Governments agreed to bear their share of the possible losses or to divide the profits. The British Government of
the day was willing to enter into the arrangement to the extent of 5/18ths, and that has remained until now.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, to leave out the words "one thousand," and to insert instead thereof the words "five hundred."
The sum I refer to is £1,000 which is proposed to be given every year to the Chairman of this Board. When the Bill was last before us, we obtained the information that this Board would sit about ten times a year, and that it would probably sit about ten hours. That means that this Chairman is to get as much per hour as an engineer gets per year. I would like to ask who is. the Chairman who is to get this job. I want to know what part he has played in the building up of this great Empire that he should get this part-time position of about ten hours per year. I want to know if it is some Tory who has rendered yeoman service to the Tory party, or some traitor to the working classes to whom this Government is about to hand the job. We find that the Board is to be made up of two representatives from His Majesty's Government. Who are those individuals who are to get this presentation of £300 a year each for practically doing nothing? We are very much interested in this cable, and in the development of the British Empire. We from the Clyde have a special right to make these inquiries regarding this cable. It was from our river that the "Great Eastern" went out to lay the first cable across the Atlantic. It was from our part of the world that the great Lord Kelvin made it possible to detect that that cable was broken without the cable having to be lifted. We from our part of the world have done yeoman service in building up this great Empire, and I want to know if the Members of these benches are having any recognition on this Board, or if only Tories are going to be members of it. We are very anxious about the conditions of the workers right down from the chairman, and including the members of this Board, down to the ordinary wage-slave who will be employed. You have to remember that we on these benches realise that this same Government imposed starvation on the miners.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I think this is hardly relevant to an Amendment which deals with the salary of the Chairman of the Board.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The reason why I am bringing in this question of the workers in relation to the miners is the very same reason for which I have put down this Amendment. I wish to reduce the salary of the chairman by £500 so that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Dominions may have that £500 to distribute among my class. I think that is quite a fair proposition.

Mr. AMERY: I think I can answer all the points in a few words. The representatives of the British Government will be two civil servants, and, as such, they will be neither Socialist, nor Tory, and, being already in receipt of payment from the Crown, they will not get the £300, which is only set down for such members of the Board as are not already in the service of the Crown. As regards the chairmanship, that is not an appointment for the British Government to decide, but for the Government in consultation with all the other Governments who are concerned. As regards the salary, I would remind the Committee that the salary for the Chairman of the Board is now £600, and it is due to the pressure of the Dominion Governments, and not to any action on our part, that it is to be raised, and it has been raised on the principle to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) referred, of endeavouring to attract a good man from private business.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has this Government any nominee for the post of Chairman?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: rose—

It being a quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move,
That this House, realising that the continuing decay in agriculture is a grave national concern and should be dealt with by the Government without delay, is of opinion that the placing of British agricul-
ture on a sound and efficient basis so as to yield a fair return to the farmer with security of tenure, subject to proper use and a satisfactory standard of living to the agricultural worker, depends upon the transference to the State of the ownership of all agricultural land, the adequate provision of capital for drainage and buildings, the encouragement of a system of cooperation in buying and marketing, the stabilisation of prices, and the energetic pursuit of scientific research.
I desire to state, in the first place, that no Member of this House need apologise for raising a discussion on agriculture at any time. This is always a topical and interesting subject. In fact, it is a vital issue always; it never becomes stale. The land was here before factories and workshops were conceived, and human beings will most likely till the soil of Britain when the industrial revolution has long been forgotten. Although this question is debated at considerable length in this House from time to time, we return to it to-night to find our difficulties in relation to agriculture just as great as ever. While the decaying conditions of the countryside in Britain are fairly well known to all Members of the House, it would not be amiss once again if the tragic facts connected with the agricultural industry were repeated. The statistics in general in relation to agriculture have been set forth with great clarity in that wonderful document entitled "The Agricultural Output of England and Wales, 1925." If there is one outstanding feature in that document it is the steady decline of this, our premier industry. For illustration, the total area of this country is 37,000,000 acres; and, as I said at the commencement, no one need apologise in the least for repeating some of the salient facts connected with it. Out of the 37,000,000 acres comprising the total area of this country, 31,000,000 acres are used for agricultural and horticultural purposes, while out of those 31,000,000 acres, 25,750,000 acres are arable and grass land, leaving about 5,000,000 acres as mountain, heath and moorland. The other 250,500 acres are presumed to be built upon or utilised for amenity purposes as parks and recreation grounds.
With regard to the value of the land—and that point, I suppose, will appeal to many hon. Members listening to me now —the total value of our land is estimated,
according to that document, at £815,000,000; the working capital on the land is about £365,000,000, making the colossal total of £1,180,000,000. The value of the land, including the necessary houses buildings, etc., or landlords' capital, works out at about £31 per acre, whereas the tenants' capital, in the form of livestock and deadstock, is about £14 per acre. The gross rental value of agricultural holdings is about £42,000,000, and the average rent per acre paid in respect of areas under crops and permanent grass is about. 32s.
Those are really very important facts to remember in drawing a picture of the agricultural problem in this country; but the depressing side is to be found in figures that are very ominous and significant indeed. During the last 50 years there has been a decline in arable cultivation from 14,750,000 acres in 1875 to 11,250,000 acres in 1925; and most important of all to remember is that, while this decline has been progressive and very saddening in its effect upon agriculture, the population of the country during the same period has practically doubled.
I have not endeavoured to calculate the percentages in this connection; but when they are worked out, giving, on one side of the picture, the decline and decay in agriculture and, on the other side, the growth of our population, the situation indeed is a very grave one to contemplate.
During the last 23 years, the area of land under crops in Great Britain has diminished by 3,408.300 acres. While that decrease has been proceeding, we have these astonishing figures presented to us, that we are importing annually 5,250,000 tons of wheat, 1,500,000 tons of meat, 2,500.000 eggs, and huge quantities of other foodstuffs. That is the capital side of the question; that relates to land, buildings, and money. What are, above all, more important to me are the statistics relating to the decline in the number of persons employed in agriculture. After all, as I shall try to prove, this is at root a human problem. In 1871 there were employed in agriculture in this country 1,240,000 males and 82,000 females. By 1921, however, 50 years later, the number of males had declined to 907,000 and of females to 51,000.
I said a moment ago that, so far as I understand it, this problem is a human one. I have been asked on several hands why I should speak on agriculture at all. I will give my reason why. I started my working life as a farm labourer. I spent the first three years in trying to earn my livelihood as a farm servant; and my case is typical of the diversion from the land to industry of thousands, if not millions, of our young people. I will tell the House what animated me to leave the land. I will try to describe, in the limited vocabulary at my command, what happened to me personally. That, I feel sure, will be an indication of the tremendous growth in our industrial population and the drive from our fields and plains into the industrial districts.
The question of wages must of course be touched in this connection. I started on a farm when I was 14 years of age. I was living in and had all that was required by way of food and shelter; but I had to buy my own clothing and was paid no wage at all for 12 months. I was hired in the annual fair, as workers are still hired, apparently, in some parts of the country. Once a week there was half a day's holiday, on the Sunday afternoon. There was half a day's holiday for the annual ploughing match, half a day for the hiring fair, and half a day's holiday at Christmas time. In each of the three years I worked on that farm the total holidays, apart from the half day on Sundays, never amounted to more than two days per annum. There was no question of a week's annual holiday; that was never mentioned, never thought of, never even dreamed of in those days. The treatment of the labourer in the past is undoubtedly at the root of most of our agricultural troubles. The second year I spent on the farm I was paid £l in wages—that was for a full 12 months—with a gift of a suit of corduroy as an act of grace. I wish I had kept them and brought them here to illustrate the treatment of farm servants many years ago; but I am not so sure that even now, in some parts of the country, the farming industry has developed very much beyond that stage. The last year I worked on the farm, at the end of which I said good-bye to the land for ever, I was paid £3 in golden sovereigns. The money was paid at the very end of the
year, by the way, so that the old gentleman farmer might not lose any interest on it.
The picture I have drawn could be multiplied in thousands upon thousands of instances in South Wales where I hail from. I wish to make it clear, however, that the retention of people on the land as labourers and farm servants is not entirely a question of wages or of tied cottages; it is the freedom of the soul of the individual that matters most. His spirit revolts against the shackles which bind him. Whatever else we on this side of the House may say about the ownership of the land—and I will touch upon that later—the one thing which has got to be done to redeem the agricultural industry is to free the soul of the man who works on it. Unless I am mistaken, the squire and the landlord still claim the right to keep in subjection politically and sometimes in the matter of religion a goodly number of men who work on the soil. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that will be disputed in some quarters, but I am not sure that in the district where I was born and bred things are so very much better now than they were 30 to 35 years ago.
I have tried to depict, as well as my vocabulary would allow, the situation as I see it; and I am pleased to note that each Party in the State realises to the full that there is something radically wrong with agriculture. Every Member in the House, irrespective of Party, realises that fact when there is so great a decline proceeding in cultivation. Statesmen from foreign countries who have come here have felt sad about our situation, because they believe, as all thinkers have always believed, that a country which neglects its agriculture is doomed to ultimate failure. To-night, if it be at all possible, I would raise this issue above party politics. Although we may differ on methods, we all have the single object in mind of retrieving the agricultural industry from the terrible situation in which it now finds itself. The three political Parties have recently taken a keen interest in the problem and their proposals have been printed. I have read them all. It would be as well if I bring before the House to-night the agricultural proposals of the party to which I belong. I know they will be regarded in some quarters as novel and
drastic, but drastic and fundamental measures must sooner or later be applied to agriculture if we are to stop the rot.
I notice that the Amendments to this Motion decry the proposal that the State should! take over the land; and counterproposals are put forward. I suggest to hon. Members who have put forward those Amendments that all the remedies they now propose have been tried before and have failed to do anything for agriculture. The proposals of other parties brought before this House from time to time have included the Corn Protection Acts, the reduction of rates on agricultural holdings, the lightening of the burden of rural roads. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but in spite of all the proposals which have been made, and all the Bills which have been translated into Acts of Parliament, this industry is actually dying under our eyes. It is decaying from year to year, and something in the nature of a surgical operation is needed to prevent its condition becoming worse. We claim, therefore, that the time has arrived when the State ought to own the land. I know the question will be asked, "Is the State going to do the farming?" Not necessarily. It is possible for the State to own the land and to take the place of the landlord, and still leave actual farming to the farmers. What we want is to rid the nation of the incubus of idle landlords. Private landlordism has failed ignominsously in connection with the land of this country.
Whatever criticism may be levelled against us, we begin with the fundamental point that the State ought to own the land. That is nothing novel. The land has been owned by States before. From time to time the land has been parcelled out by Governments—not in this country, maybe; but in my own country the land was once upon a time parcelled out among the adult population periodically; and I am not so sure that the day will not come in this country when a law of that sort may not be carried by this House in an effort to redeem agriculture. I repeat that private landlordism has failed the farmer. Lack of security of tenure has killed his spirit. The big landlord too
often treats land as an amenity, a playground, and a means of obtaining social prestige.
The transfer of the land to the State would, of course, mean compensation. We admit that at once. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW many of you?"] The dispossessed landlord would be compensated on Schedule A basis; but he would not be paid amenity values. We would set up a central and a local administration. The National Agricultural Commission which we propose would naturally be departmentalised. It would have its experts in finance, in agriculture, in education and in research. A national Commission, having the responsibility of seeing that agriculture is carried on properly, ought, in our view, to be established as soon as possible. Once we have established a national authority, we must, of course, have local administration, and for that purpose we should reconstitute the county agricultural committees. We would have people there representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the county council, the farmers, the smallholders and the workers.
I have just indicated only two or three points in the programme of the Labour party; but it is not my intention to dwell unduly on that programme in moving my Resolution, as other Members want to speak. In these matters, there is nothing better than personal experience to convince most of us in regard to methods to be adopted upon issues of this kind. I have sat for 10 years on the Manchester City Council. I was a member of the Markets Committee of that authority, and it interested me that that great local authority which owned a very large cold storage, stored a huge quantity of foreign produce, notably apples. When I travelled through Worcestershire and Salop, I could often see when looking out of the train a large quantity of apples which were never gathered; they were allowed to rot because it did not pay to gather them.
It seems to me that there is something radically wrong in a nation that has to import produce of this kind thousands of miles over the sea, cold storage them, and at the same time allows the same type of produce to rot in its own fields. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should look into this question of cold storage
and see if something cannot be done to secure the co-operation of local authorities in order to help the farmer to deal with his produce. The kernel of this problem as I have said is the human being. Naturally, the farmer must secure his dues, he must be freed from the thraldom of landlordism that surrounds him. The agricultural worker must be provided with better wages, a full working week, a reasonable number of hours of labour, payment for overtime and above all—it is strange that we should be compelled to claim this in 1927 in Great Britain—the farm worker must be made free as a religious and a political being; and he must be freed also from the economic pressure of his employer.
The astonishing thing to those of us who touch agriculture only on an occasion of this kind is, that last year 66,103 of our people migrated to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa mostly, I should imagine, men who would go there to work on the soil. They would proceed to work on land which is not as fertile and productive as the soil of this country. That is an extraordinary situation. I am not opposed to emigration; but one thing I fail to understand, namely, that the best of our stock are taken from the best farms and fields of our own land, and sent thousands of miles away to Canada and Australia to do exactly the same work and produce exactly the same things that they ought to be producing in their own country. There is something wrong in a situation that admits of the figures which I have quoted.
I rather admire the idea which prevailed in ancient Rome when agriculture was classed with war as an occupation necessary to become a free man. I am told that the leading statesmen of Rome of olden days were never allowed to sit in a Cabinet unless they had followed the plough. In our country one of the essential qualifications for sitting in the present Cabinet is having been a good and prosperous capitalist. I wish we could get back to the Roman idea of drawing our rulers more and more from agriculture. As a rule, our present Ministers are people who have been engaged in banking, the coal industry and even in brewing.
I will venture to conclude with the language of Oliver Goldsmith, who knew
probably as much about this question as most of us who are here to-night. His words were perfectly true then: and they are applicable even now. He said:
Princes and Lords may flourish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride.
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not intend to enter into any detail on the aspects of this question which the Mover has raised. I may, however, ask the indulgence of the House to emphasise one or two outstanding features which are necessary to the argument which I hope to develop. I want to say, in the first place, that I associate myself with what the Mover of the Motion has said with regard to lifting this question of the basic industry of the country into a position of some relationship to actual truth and actual facts, apart from the exigencies of political bias. Probably all sections of the House will agree that in the days before the War when, from an industrial point of view, our manufacturers found a ready sale without much difficulty we could look with complacency on the decay which had taken place in rural England for over fifty years so long as the markets of the world were taking our goods. Since the War we all agree that there has been a great change in the situation and to-day everybody realises that the evidence points in the direction that never again are we likely to enjoy the dominating position in the markets of the world for our industrial products which we held before the War. Therefore, we are driven by necessity to look to agriculture from the point of view of a national necessity to meet the changed situation which has come over the world since the War took place. That being the case, what are the outstanding facts? My hon. Friend has mentioned one or two of them; may I put them in, perhaps, if I may say so, a more concise form? The book on agricultural production that has been alluded to has only brought out what was very well known before. From 1871 down to. 1925, there have gone out of cultivation in this country 2,245,000 acres, which used to be cultivated when our population was
only 22,000,000, as against 37,000,000 in 1891, and nearly 40,000,000 in 1925, in England and Wales alone.
That is with regard to cultivated land generally, but when one comes to land under arable cultivation, the drop there is over 4,000,000 acres since 1871, and the result is that to-day we have something like 9,000,000 acres altogether under arable cultivation in England and Wales. When one considers certain basic crops, such,, for instance, as wheat—the prime necessity of agricultural pursuits and of life—we find that, whereas in 1871 we had 3,400,000 acres under wheat in. England and Wales, with a population of 22,000,000, now, with a population of nearly 40,000,000, we have only 1,500,000 acres under wheat,, or a drop of nearly 2,000,000 acres since 1871. That is obviously, from the point of view of self-sustenance, a very serious situation, and one which I venture to suggest is unparalleled in any other Western country in Europe. There is no Western country in Europe where agriculture has come to be what it is in this country to-day. Indeed, in Western Europe, probably without a single exception, there has been a great increase in the amount of land under cultivation. With the rise in population,, more land has been taken in, and, therefore—

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: Is not that under Protection?

Mr. RILEY: There is Protection only in some countries. Is Denmark a Protectionist country?

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Yes.

Mr. RILEY: I will deal with that later, but there is the fact. In this country, on the other hand, with an enormously expanding population, doubling itself since 1871, our fundamental crop of wheat has gone down to less than half what it was when we had only half the population that we have to-day. It is not only reflected in the matter of output of agricultural produce, but in the rural life of the country. Everywhere we see the decay of the village and the growth of the town, the fleeing of the rural population from rural England. Within the last 50 years, we
have seen the fleeing of men from a plague of conditions imposed upon them by the agricultural system existing in the country.
My hon. Friend referred to his early experiences. A matter of 30 years ago, it was my duty for four years to investigate, village by village, the agricultural conditions in the middle of England, to ascertain the conditions of village life— housing, wages, labour, the seeding down of arable land to grass, and so on. For four years I did nothing else but investigate and report upon those changes which had taken place, and I recall to-day many occasions, 25 and 30 years ago, in villages in Herefordshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and South Warwickshire, when on a summer afternoon—not after the work was done in the evening, but from 2 to 4 o'clock—you could walk into the fields and see no sign of human life—simply growing grass, a few cows here and there, but no population, no sign of human life. You might have been in the centre of Africa so far as any sign of vitality was concerned.
Within 30 miles of Birmingham, in county after county you could experience the stillness of death 30 years ago. And when one came to look into village records, and take the records of population, one found, and had to record the fact, that from 1871 down to 1891. there was a drop in population of over 50 per cent in village after village. Taking villages with a population of 500 in 1871, one had to record 250 and 240 in 1891. People had flown from the. conditions in which they lived, as people who flew from a plague. As someone said in the Debate on agriculture in this House the other day, one of the tragic things in rural life, which I think every Member of the House realises, is the absence of the virile active young mar and the presence of the middle-aged and the old man. What has brought about this situation? What is the explanation of it, and what is the remedy that can be applied? Those of us who sit on these benches say that the cause of this decay of British agriculture, this stagnation in Great Britain of an industry which prospers elsewhere, is to be found largely in the system of control by the landlord of the tenant, under which the man who does the work is conditioned by the man who happens to own the land.
We say that the first remedy, without which no permanent solution can be found, is to put the man, whether he be farmer or labourer, on to a business footing in relation to the land which he occupies and on which he works, to relieve him from any kind of dependence upon or control by some individual who happens to own the raw material on which he has to make his living. Therefore, we set forth in our programme that there can be no real step forward towards an improved agriculture in this country until the nation realises that in the past it has been let down by a control of the agriculturist's raw material which has not had in view the national well-being in the use of national resources, but has had in view an interest to which the industry has had to minister irrespectively of the well-being of the country. We say that the first thing, if there is to be a revival in agriculture—and we on this side want such a revival—if national resources are to be used as the Minister is now using them, if these millions of pounds are to be taken from the taxpayer, from public funds, and given over to trying to revive agriculture, if £9,000,000 is to be put into promoting the beet sugar industry, and so on, if the farmer is going to be helped by relieving him of his burden of rates—if the national resources are going to be used in this way, we say the nation must take charge and control of the land.
Now I come to the policy of the Government and those who moved the Amendments. There are two Amendments. One asserts that in place of our proposals for the reorganisation of agriculture for the acquisition of the land for the nation and the development of the resources of the country what you want is stable prices, and you will get that by some alteration of the currency.

Mr. BLUNDELL: What is your answer to that proposal?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: Before 1914 for a very long period that very condition obtained in other countries in Europe. In 1893, when agriculture was on its last legs, there was a stable currency. This depression on agriculture is not at all new. I recall being a delegate to a conference in London organised by Lord Winchilsea over 30 years ago and then we had a stable currency, but we did not have prosperity. There was a stable currency in Denmark and in this country. The
other alternative is the Government programme which, so far as it goes, is to put up certain proposals with regard to drainage and with regard to the capital required for land which has become derelict because of the neglect of the landlords to do their duty. Capital is now required to help the industry along and money is needed for small holdings and so on. Our objection to that is the experience of the past, that the utilisation of national capital to try to promote agricultural prosperity always has one inevitable end. So long as land is privately owned, the assistance given by the nation goes into the landlord's pocket. I know that argument will be questioned, but no man with any vestige of knowledge of economic experience has any doubt whatever in his mind. The facts are too patent. Let me give one. The Minister answered a question to-day with regard to small holdings in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Before the War the West Riding County Council acquired 5,000 acres for small holdings. Since the War they have acquired 8,000 acres. The financial story with regard to that is that the 5,000 acres acquired before you had the Corn Production Act—£20,000,000 or thereabouts of national money poured into the landed interest—cost on the average £31 10s. per acre. Then, under the Land Settlement Act of 1919, they purchased 8,000 acres more at an average price not of £31 but of £43. If public money poured into the agricultural interest does not go to the landlord, how can this increase of price be explained? Had the landlords done anything between 1914 and 1919? You know perfectly well they had not. What had occurred was that £20,000,000 of the taxpayers' money had been put into the agricultural industry, and the landlord reaped the benefit.
So I might go on. It is the story of agricultural rates just the same. It is an axiom which no one can dispute, that in the long run the higher the rates the land carries the lower the rent paid. It is equally true that the lower the rates the land has to bear the higher the rent the landlord will take. It is an axiom that you cannot get away from. We agree that national capital ought to be used in a situation like that we are faced with, but if we are to have national
capital used we must have national ownership to reap the benefit. Hon. Members opposite will probably not accept the necessity of national ownership of land in the interest of a revived agriculture, but there is one thing the Minister has agreed to, as a matter of fact, only he does not push St. He may say: "While we cannot see our way to a policy which will bring agricultural land under national direction, we are prepared to help those who help themselves, and we will do what we possibly can to give a chance to the men who want to get on to the land, who want to have a chance to increase the rural population and increase rural prosperity." So last Session a new Small Holdings Act was passed, which is now in operation. Here again is the failure of the Ministry. What are the facts with regard to the attitude of the Government to the question of small holdings? With millions of men out of work, with 45,000 ex-service men wanting land, 45,000 of them applied, and only some 16,000 have been settled.
Some glaring cases of utter neglect of this Ministry, which stands for agricultural prosperity, are coming out. The other day a question was put to the Scottish Minister as to the number of small owners who have been created in Lanark from 1919 to the end of 1926. The reply of the Minister was that not a single one had been created in the county of Lanark, although in the neighbouring counties provision had been made for 16. I find from the Report of the Scottish Ministry that under the Act of 1919 and the previous powers of the Scottish Ministry from 1912, some 414 ex-soldiers had applied for small holdings in the county of Lanark down to the year 1925, and the Report says that only seven had been settled. When the Ministry made out its return at the end of 1925, there were still 190 men whose applications had been approved and who were still waiting for land. The hon. Member for Both-well (Mr. Sullivan) informs me that at the same time in the county of Lanark, whilst this situation obtains, there are 67,081 men unemployed, not including Glasgow. For years there has been a demand for small holdings, and in all these years seven small holdings have been established in the county of Lanark.
I do not want to overdo the picture, but I want to remind the Minister and the Government that they must either show their genuineness and their real desire to promote land settlement or they must lay themselves open to condemnation that they are not sincere in the policy which they profess.
As the Minister knows perfectly well, the striking thing about small holdings is that, with all their difficulties, they have been an unquestionable success. To-day, I asked the Minister to tell us how many failures had taken place on the 600 small holdings in the West Riding of Yorkshire, especially under Acts of Parliament where the county councils have acquired land and where they own the land. He said that on the pre-war holdings the failures have been 3 per cent., and that on the post-war holdings they have been something less than 6 per cent. I have here the Report of the West Riding County Council. On page 10 of the report for 1924, which is the latest report I have, they show the number of holdings created. In the case of ordinary holdings, out of a total of 446 tenants there were five failures, or 1.1 per cent. Then they take the trainees, and out of 29 trainees five were failures. Altogether, including the trainees, the failures were 2.1 per cent. I submit to the Minister that that is a remarkable result. We have been told that the men cannot work the land and make it pay. Here are the facts, the official figures, not mere party figures. I ask the Minister to rise to the height of a great view and of a national, prosperous agriculture, and to do something worthy of it, so that the State can help and stimulate the farmers and everyone concerned, and that they may have a square deal. He knows that Commissions have reported repeatedly that when small holdings are established they not only increase the rural population, but they increase the output of agriculture and react upon the town industry by increasing purchasing power.

Sir G. WHELER: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
realises the value to the nation of a flourishing agriculture, but is of opinion that the prosperity of the industry is best secured by a stable policy which will enable the farmer to develop his industry without
unnecessary interference, will protect him from revolutionary proposals which would impair progress and breed insecurity, and, with the help of such encouragement and advice as the Government may be able to offer, will create confidence and enable the industry to be organised on an economic basis.
With the opening words of the Mover of the Resolution no one is prepared to quarrel. I also welcome his statement that this matter should he dealt with from the national point of view and should be divorced, as far as possible, from party politics. It is our great basic industry, and we look to a national endeavour to support it, so that it may not enter the conflict of party politics, such as we have had to-night. The further the Debate has gone, the further it has gone from the Resolution. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has been speaking with great fluency and great enthusiasm, but he has hardly dealt with the Resolution. The Mover of the Resolution, beyond dealing very vaguely with it, really said nothing about it. When the Socialist party put forward a Motion dealing with the policy of agriculture they should try to justify their policy, to show what their policy really means, how it is going to work in practice, and what results they have to show as regards its practice elsewhere, instead of getting down to clap-trap about the thraldom of the underman in agriculture, and so on. That is an old topic. The hon. Member speaks as an agriculturist and, quite justifiably, as one who has been on the land. I can speak for the small landowner and occupier of a good many years' experience, and I take him at his word when he says that there is nothing better than personal experience. I would add that there is nothing better than practical experience. He has given us nothing to justify one iota or the slightest particle of Socialist policy.
The Motion is very wide and sweeping. It covers the whole policy of the Socialist party. I presume that the Mover speaks for the whole Socialist party. When he speaks about the transference of land, I suppose he is prepared to deal with the transference of the land, although he was very vague about it, on the principle of compensation. Has he his full party behind him when he says that? I am rather inclined to think that he has not. The back benches are not very full to-night. There was one member of that party who aspired to enter
this House, quite recently, who had nothing to say for compensation. He did not get in. At any rate, he had the whole backing of the party opposite. When the party opposite use the word "transference" they are using a very safe word, because they do not say what transference means. The hon. Member, with his great knowledge of agriculture, might have given us some information. He gave us none.

Mr. MONTAGUE: You know our policy on the matter!

Sir G. WHELER: The hon. Member says we know their policy. I do not think we do. The policy of the Labour party differs in a great many points, and what they say in the country is very often different to what they say in this House. I should have thought it would have been interesting to hon. Members in this House, and also to people outside, if the hon. Member had outlined the policy of the Labour party on the question of agriculture. The policy which he has outlined to-night does not receive the support of a single practical agriculturist in the country. As far as it has gone the policy of State ownership has not proved a success; it has not provided a profit. There has always been a loss. The hon. Member talks of the difficulties of the countryside, which I admit, but he never said one word on the question of prices, which is the main problem of agriculture at the moment. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have failed most completely to say one word in its justification.
I want to ask two questions. The first is this: Has the present system completely failed? The hon. Member has talked a great deal about the decay of agriculture and has quoted from a document which was recently issued by the Minister of Agriculture, but he forgot to say one thing, which is of great importance, and it is this. If we look at the total agricultural output of England and Wales, what do we find as regards the total price value. They are rather remarkable figures. The total price value in 1908 was £127,000,000, but, in spite of the difficulties which agriculture has had to face, the total price value has gone up to £225,000,000 last year, or an increase of 77 per cent., and this in a so-called decaying industry. Another very interesting point is this. Out of that
£225,000,000 worth, no less than £155,000,000 can be attributed to the sales of live stock. It means that because corn-growing has not been successful, and we all know the reasons why it does not pay, the English farmer, who is always being run down by hon. Members of the party opposite, has adapted himself successfully to the altered conditions of farming, he has changed his vocation, and in doing so has increased his output of livestock pro-duets to the extent of £155,000,000. It is quite true that only £11,000,000 is the result of corn-growing, and I agree that it is a most deplorable situation, because the large proportion of the ordinary land of this country is corn-growing land, and would still be available for corn-growing if it was worth while.
At any rate, these facts justify me in saying that, while we all admit that we desire help for agriculture all round, I am not prepared to accept the statement that it is a dying industry. The figures I have quoted show that the farmers of this country are able to adapt themselves to the altered conditions, and the result redounds greatly to the credit of our agricultural community. With regard to the landlord himself, there is a shortage of capital we all admit, and that is one of the reasons why we want State loans on easy terms, especially for those farmers who are engaged in what may be called ordinary farming. The men who are dealing with dairy produce and small holdings get a turnover possibly once or twice during the year. On a dairy farm the farmer gets a turnover many times during the year, but the corn farmer only gets a turnover once a year, and it is because of the slowness of his turnover that he is asking for cheap capital under a credit system, which I believe the Minister is going to bring forward, and by which I hope this capital will be made available.
I want to give an instance or two of practical experience in State ownership. I could say a good deal on this question, but an hon. Member on this side of the House is going to deal with this aspect of the problem, and I will leave the matter, therefore, to him. I only want to say just one word on some returns which I have got from a publication which was issued in 1926. They are
taken from the trading accounts and balance sheets of farming operations carried on by the Ministry of Agriculture since the War and up to the period ending 31st March 1926. That Report includes much information with regard to the various farm settlements under the Government, and I commend the information to hon. Gentlemen opposite. These are cases where an official takes the place of the individual; where individual enterprise is divorced in favour of official supervision. What do we find? In the case of the Amesbury Farm Settlement, there is a debt of £39,327; in the case of Holbeach, in Lincolnshire, there is a debt of £24,753 1s. 10d.; in the case of Patrington, in Yorkshire, there is a debt on the settlement account of £71,005 10s. 1d., and on the estate account a debt of £29,451 13s. 2d. On the whole holding of Patrington there is a debt of £100,457 3s. 2d.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is that a loss?

Sir G. WHELER: Yes, I think it is. On the Rolleston, Notts, farm settlement there is a loss of £11,106 3s. 6d., on the Wainfleet farm settlement a loss of £31,777 15s. 3d., and on the Wantage farm settlement a debt of £11,707 12s. 5d.

Mr. RILEY: Is it not a fact that these settlements are not business concerns but are for the training of ex-soldiers?

Sir G. WHELER: That may be so, but these are instances of State management and you can consider the State's aspect in every case, apart from that of settlement. That is quite easy, and the hon. Gentleman will find that where the Government of the day takes over this management of agriculture and where in place of the individual effort of the farmer and his family you have a paid man put in, in every case there are these losses and there will be. These are the only facts which can be adduced as regards Government work on agricultural land. Yet, in the face of these facts, the hon. Gentleman and his Friends come down to the House and ask us blindly to plunge into the policy they advocate of a general system of nationalisation of land.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the hon. Member seen the letter in to-day's London "Times," signed by Lord Bledisloe, dealing with the effects of nationalisation of land in Czechoslovakia on the increase of food products?

Sir G. WHELER: No, I am much more interested in the position here.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Is the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) aware that in Czechoslovakia it is not a question of nationalising the land but of breaking up the large estates and giving it to the peasants, which is exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman is advocating.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what Lord Bledisloe calls the "progressive nationalisation of the land" does begin by breaking up the huge monopolistic estates, but does not mean parcelling out all land among the peasants as the hon. Member is endeavouring to make us believe?

Sir G. WHELER: I was trying to show that where the Government of the day does take over the management of land, there has nearly always resulted a loss and that is good enough for me. The Socialist policy is to have complete State ownership of land and State management in place of the owners of land, and to set up an innumerable body of officials who will control the land. I say, from the commonsense point of view of one who has farmed, that the less agriculture has in the way of interference from officialdom the better it will be for agriculture, and the more encouragement there is for private enterprise the better the land will be farmed. I think the hon. Member who is going to follow me will show that.
Now I come to the Amendment we wish to move. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have missed their opportunity to put their case and have given us no statements to justify what they have put on the Paper, and, therefore, I feel still more fortified in moving the Amendment standing in my name. I should like to remind the House, in spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, that the relief in rates is a very large assistance to farm buildings. From my own practical experience, I say that the relief as to the roads, in other words, the relief in the rates paid by rural ratepayers which already under the proposals of the Ministry mean a relief to the extent of 20 per cent., with an additional 5 per cent. now and more to come—all these proposals do mean a lightening of the burden on industry.
All these things, coupled with the fact that the Ministry is also actively prosecuting research in every possible way, together with the proposals dealing with credit, are the lines to work on, and though they do not do all that we want, they are the lines on which we shall progress. There is another point to which I should like to refer. Owing to the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease, a few months ago a certain check was put on carcases coming from those countries where we knew foot-and-mouth disease was rife. The outcome of that has been that the pig industry—an industry which helps the smaller farmer and smallholder and everybody else—has been going ahead in a very satisfactory and helpful way. I would venture to commend that to the Government as something they should think about. Is it not an instance of what has been done at any rate to safeguard an industry from damage from outside and at the same time to give a fillip to the industry itself? Would it not be worth while for the Government to consider the safeguarding of all products and by-products from pigs? You will find that, while there is practically no increase in the price of bacon, yet you get for every class of agriculturist a more stable feeling in the pig industry. Therefore, if the Minister could see his way to extend the policy of safeguarding to that point, I venture to say he would be doing something far more effective to help the smallholder than any of the nostrums of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
In conclusion, may I say I fully realise, as an agriculturist, that times are hard for agriculture and that there is a large number of able working men —and the skilled man on the land is as skilled as any man in any trade anywhere—who are not getting what we would like to see them get. I do say that the strictures passed on those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite call the landlords, but whom I prefer to call the landowners, are neither justified nor fair. I say that instead of that, if we can get a spirit of working together rather than the diverse policy which we have heard to-night, I think we shall be doing more good than we have done in the last few years. I make that appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I venture to say that if we can get a common platform for the agriculture
industry to work on we shall do more good to agriculture than this revolutionary policy of confiscation, which would upset the whole social conditions of agriculture from the rock bottom.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
In spite of having been a Member of this House for more than two years, I hope the House will, none the less, accord me its customary indulgence in a maiden speech. Like my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, I must confess that I was disappointed in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, because I had hoped they would do something to clear up for me the difficulties in which I found myself when I had finished reading the official Labour policy on agriculture. I think on all sides there is a complete unanimity that agriculture is the most depressed industry—almost, if not quite—without exception in this country. Any difference of opinion that there may be is as to the lines that we are to adopt to put it on its feet again. The Resolution calls upon us, even if its Mover did not, to introduce active control on the part of the Government in the industry. I do not think that Members opposite would expect us on this side to support such a Resolution. It will be exceedingly interesting to see into which Lobby the Liberal party will go in the Division which will end the Debate.
When I was reading the policy of the Labour party, I tried to disentangle the great skeins of red tape, if I may so term them, which were included in their book. I found that there were two principal skeins hopelessly mixed up together. One of them is the idea of national purchase of the land, and the other is the idea of national control of the industry. So far as I can understand, the Labour party has not yet made up its mind whether it is going to put its principles of Socialism into full force as far as agriculture is concerned. The Labour party leaders are probably frightened of the figures shown in the agricultural output of England and Wales—figures which give us to understand that there are now 250,000 men who term themselves farmers engaged in the industry. I cannot help feeling that one
of their principal reasons for rather avoiding the issue of nationalising the industry is that they are frightened of offending those 250,000 men and running the risk of losing their votes. But even so far as the first object is concerned, there is a very sharp division of opinion in the party, according to the views we have heard expressed, as to whether they are to take control of the land by means of confiscation or by means of compensation. Up to date, compensation appears to hold the day. It may be of interest if I read to the House a passage from a pamphlet entitled "A Prosperous Countryside," which I expect is familiar to hon. Members opposite, as it is the work of the Leader of the Opposition. In this pamphlet the right hon. Gentleman makes the following remark:
If, as in the present case, the compensation to be paid still leaves a clear margin of advantage to the community, then I would have no hesitation in paying compensation and pocketing the margin of advantage to the community.
That quite definitely means that under the scheme for compensation as advocated by the Labour party they do not intend that the landowners shall be the gainers, but that the margin of advantage shall be put into the pockets of the community. That is to say, that the morality of the Labour party is this—It is a worse thing to steal a penny than a pound. If that is their point of view, let them say so. If they really mean that they intend to compensate but not to compensate fully, it is a great pity that they do not come forward and say so. My point of view is that if they intend to take over the land, it would be very much better to say: "Well, we will confiscate and be done with it." The miserable policy of scooping in the small margin for the State is not the sort of thing likely to go down well in the country districts. Not only is the landowner to be penalised, but the farmer too, because the State, having taken over the land, is going to pay bonds to the landowner by way of payment, and a sinking fund will be set up in order to pay off those bonds. The sinking fund is presumably to take the form of an increase in the rent to the farmer. So that in effect the result of this policy will be that the farmer will have to buy the land from the landowner and make a present of it to the Government.
That is the Labour policy, and I do not think my statement can be contradicted in any way. In addition to that, the basis of purchase, so far as I understand it, is to be valuation for Income Tax under Schedule A, and under that system the man who has consistently rack-rented his tenants will get the full value of his estate, whereas the man who has been generous and kept his rents as low as possible, will lose to the extent to which he has been generous. I do not know whether that appeals to hon. Members opposite. But what is the object of this colossal financial experiment? It is an experiment which would mean pledging the credit of the State for a sum not very far short of £1,000,000,000. I submit this fact to the House and I do not think that anyone can disagree with me. The only direct effect of nationalising the land will be felt by the farmer and not by the farm labourer; that is to say that if the farm labourer is to have his wages increased the money is bound to come from the farmer, and therefore if there is to be an increase of wages, it will mean really an increase in the revenues accruing to the farmer. Further, any effect beneficial to the labourer must come through the farmer. I submit that if the farmer is to be able to pay these very much increased wages, if the industry is really to be put on its feet again, the farmer must be a very substantial beneficiary under any such scheme.
One would expect that if a scheme such as that, put forward simply for the benefit of the farmers, had any confidence amongst the people who really know, there would be a certain body of opinion among the farmers in support of it. But certainly in the course of my life I have never met a. farmer who could possibly be termed a Socialist. In addition to that, can anyone say that the policy of the National Farmers' Union is calculated to support the party opposite? I would remind hon. Members opposite that the farmers were not supporters of the Conservative party quite a short time ago. They actually gave their official support to a Liberal candidate in opposition to the Minister of Agriculture. But there is this very remarkable fact, that since then the Liberal party, or at any rate one of that party's leaders, has shown a very strong
tendency towards the present Labour land scheme, exactly in proportion as the Liberal party has advocated the nationalisation of the land has the Farmers' Union come across and supported the policy of the present Government.
If the policy which is designed simply to benefit the farmers is utterly rejected by them to a man, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that the policy has not gained much confidence among the experts? Of course, there are other reasons why the farmers distrust any policy of nationalising the land. I think they believe, what is consistently denied by hon. Members opposite, namely, that the policy of nationalising the land is really a preliminary to nationalising the farming industry, and I can bring evidence to show that such an idea is not entirely out of the minds of hon. Members opposite. In the pamphlet to which I have already referred I find the following remark:
The Labour Minister of Agriculture charged with the responsibility of executing the schemes of nationalisation outlined in our programme, would carry out all the necessary preliminaries and change the status of occupation and tillage within the brief period of six months.
If that does not mean that the Minister of Agriculture is to have absolute control of the status of occupation and tillage, then what does it mean? In addition to that, I find a suggestion for setting up local committees, and it is said that these committees will not be in any way bureaucratic bodies, but at any rate, the majority of the members who sit on those committees will be appointed according to the scheme and paid by the Minister of Agriculture. I can speak with a certain amount of experience on this matter, because I am a member of the agricultural committee in the county which I have the honour to represent, appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Hon. Members opposite must admit either that the Minister of Agriculture can make some very bad choices, or else that I can speak with the experience of an expert, and I maintain that no such committee as the one on which I sit, could possibly conduct the agricultural affairs of the county. If you are not going to have such a committee, then under this scheme you are going to import people from outside, paid and
appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, and if those are not officials, and if that is not a bureaucratic system, hon. Members opposite had better have recourse to the dictionary.
I am quite prepared to discuss the question of State farming and, however much it may be denied on the Front Opposition Bench, there are probably a good many hon. Members on the back benches opposite who, quite definitely, approve of a scheme of State farming and would like to see it. I had hoped that the Mover of the Resolution would give us some of his opinions as to what the State could do by nationalising the land to affect methods of farming in this country We have often brought against us such arguments as this—agriculture in this country is in a bad state; agriculture in Denmark is, apparently, in a thriving and prosperous condition; therefore, the Government ought to take such measures as have been taken in Denmark, and introduce co-operation, if necessary compulsorily, or go still further and take over the whole land and run it by the State. Those who use that argument forget that you cannot introduce co-operation compulsorily. That I submit is a complete paradox. If cooperation is to be successful it has to be and it has always been, through all its original stages, the work of individual farmers or individual landowners. Any idea of introducing compulsory co-operation must obviously fail; such a thing is impossible. In those countries where cooperation has been successful you get conditions totally different from those which are found in this country.
For instance, in Denmark, in the United States and in Canada, agriculture, in the districts where co-operation has been put into action, is the paramount industry. It is not like this country where you have a great many branches of industry carried on in a comparatively small area. There you find huge districts, devoted entirely to one or perhaps two forms of production. In Canada every effort of the population in the wheat-growing districts, and every method of transport, is devoted to the production and marketing of wheat. In this country the railways to a large extent are links between great industrial districts. In those countries facilities are provided, simply and solely for agriculture. In this country, if by any
chance we on this side of the House were to give some special facility to agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) would tell us, as he has told us before, that agriculture is "the pampered darling of the Tory party." An utterly wrong idea is given in the Labour proposals as to the facts with regard to transport in this country. I refer the House to page 26 of the official Labour policy where the following statement occurs:
It is a serious matter for the British farmer that it is cheaper to send, for instance, broccoli from Holland to the North of England than it is to send it from Cornwall, or to send produce from France to Covent Garden than it is from Cornwall.
The gentleman who wrote that document must not have examined the atlas. If he had done so, he would have realised that the north of France is much closer to Covent Garden than Cornwall, and that the coast of Holland is nearer to the great seaports in the north of England than Cornwall. It is a very much quicker route straight by sea, than taking it from Cornwall across the principal trade routes of the country and across all kinds of lines. There are statements of that sort in this policy to which, I think, we have a right to take exception, because they give the false impression that those engaged in agriculture could in some inexplicable way reorganise the industry so as to change its whole geographical basis. I desire to say something about co-operative farming in England because the figures which have recently been published are extremely interesting. I quote from the report of the central board of the Co-operative Union, and I think those figures will be acceptable to all Members of the House. The figures refer to the land farmed by the co-operative societies between the years 1917 and 1925, and I would remind the House that these include the best price years that have been known in this country for a long time. They farmed an acreage of 75,000 acres, worth £3,500,000, and at the end of the period the net result was that deficits exceeded surpluses by £1,000,000.
That is a very remarkable result of cooperation in this country, and the reasons for that failure are even more instructive. Amongst others, I find the difficulty of competing with farmers. I think that is a good reason. Another is the difficulty of
securing farm managers willing to work with the same zeal for a society as for themselves. That is a definite proof of what we on this side of the House have always maintained, that no man will work so well for a salary as he will for a profit. The third reason is even more instructive than any of the others. It is the undue participation by committees in the management of the farms. And yet the policy which the party opposite have the courage to bring before the House, is to organise the whole of the agricultural industry of this country by an ascending series of Committees with the Minister of Agriculture in solitary glory at the top.
There is another very remarkable fact about these figures. Hon. Members opposite are never tired of telling us that one of the principal causes of the difficulty of farming in this country is that the middlemen take all the money, that the difference in the money received by the farmer and that which is paid by the consumer is absorbed by the middlemen. And yet, these co-operative societies, representing unlimited capital, with a guaranteed market at their doors, with no middlemen, with a capital of £3,300,000, in the course of only a few years managed to make the astounding losses of £1,000,000. If I may touch on a rather more risky subject, I think we can do very well to look at Russia as an example of what nationalisation has done. No one will deny that Russia is still a tolerably Socialistic State, and yet in that country, where the land was nationalised, and, from the point of view of the State, perhaps, in the most economic way, that is to say by confiscation, they found that the system was completely unworkable, and at the moment, I believe, almost the entire land has been given back again to the present proprietors. The policy of nationalisation has failed utterly.
10.0 p.m.
I do not want to say much about the subject of stabilisation of prices, because I believe if I do so I shall take up the time of hon. Members behind me who want to talk upon that subject, but I do think that, as a matter of fact, the Labour party, when they put forward a scheme for stabilising prices, although they have not suggested anything which, in my opinion, is feasible, they have touched the real weak spot of agriculture. But when they talk of stabilising prices, I would like to refer them to this book which has
been already quoted several times this evening, that, in fact, when you come to the question of yield, you get such enormous variations, that even if you did stabilise prices, you would in no way stabilise the returns, and you are not going to benefit the farmer in the least simply by stabilising prices, if he has a yield which may vary over some hundreds per cent. If you are really going to put forward a scheme for the stabilisation of prices, at least you must also do something to give him an increased price or a decreased price according to his yield, or else you are going to make the whole plan miscarry.
I have endeavoured to show that most of the schemes put forward as the official policy of the Labour party, even if the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution did not touch upon them, are not favourable to British agriculture. Our Amendment simply deals with the policy of the Government, and it would be useless for me to try to cover that this evening. I would like to say that we shall welcome at any time in the near future the proposals of the Government with regard to long-term credit, because that is a. scheme promised long ago, and would really be a boon to farmers. That is the sort of scheme that is going to help the farmer. Revolutionary proposals are only going to make farming more uncertain, and if we want to see a prosperous agriculture, then we have got to put it in a position from which no political party and no temporary mishap can dislodge it.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I desire to congratulate the last speaker on his first effort in this House. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the Mover of the Resolution. He dwelt most of the time upon a description of the depressed state of agriculture. I do not think it is necessary for anyone to waste very much time in describing agriculture as depressed. That is a matter on which there is common agreement. All parties in the House know that agriculture has suffered for a very long time, and is suffering still. The Motion also expresses the remedies which the Mover would apply to make agriculture a successful industry. I agree with his description of the depression, but the moment he attempts to apply his remedies I differ from him entirely. Take, for instance, the remedies
as set forth in the Motion: First of all, State ownership of ail agricultural land, then the provision of capital for improvements, stabilisation of prices, co-operation and research.
Before discussing the proposed remedies, I would ask the House to consider why agriculture is depressed at the present moment. My hon. Friend says it is the Tory Government, but it was depressed when the Labour Government was in office, and it was depressed for many years before that. If I may judge by the chief remedy which my hon. Friend proposes, he appears to think that the depression is due to the private ownership of land. I do not think it is anything of the kind. He described landlordism as an incubus. In my opinion landlords as a class have done their duty nobly. There are bad landlords, I admit, but, taking them as a class, they have done their duty nobly. [HON. MEMBERS: "In collecting the rents."] Yes, and the rents in no way represent the interest on the capital which they have placed in the land. I think it would be fair to say that the landlords have never regarded the ownership of land as an investment. I go further and I say that if the landlords received payment for the buildings only which are erected on the farms the price they would get for them at present cost would be far in excess of what the land and buildings would fetch if they were put in the market. They have done all they can to make their tenants happy. [Interruption.] I am speaking from experience. I have already said that there are occasionally bad landlords but, taking them as a class, I am perfectly certain that they have done more than they could be expected to have done. I go further and I say this. The best system for agriculture is a good landlord taking an interest in his tenant, and a good tenant doing the best he can out of his farm. If you can get that combination, I am perfectly convinced that it is the best combination that can be found anywhere. What does my hon Friend in his Motion propose? He says that the one thing to make agriculture a success is to get rid of landlordism and to substitute for the landlord State ownership. How is the substitution of the State for the landlord going to help the farmer?
I go so far as to say that if the State give full value for the farms and if they are going to get good rent and have a return on the money invested, if they are going to make any improvement, they will have to have interest on that improvement, and I say, alter having had considerable experience of small holdings in my own county, that the rents will be higher under State ownership than they are under private ownership. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Liberal land policy"!] It may be the Liberal land policy, but it is the truth.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Confiscation is the only remedy.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman says that confiscation is the only remedy. God help the country if confiscation is the only remedy! There is one other point that I wish to make in regard to this matter. My hon. Friend did not dwell very much on the question of prices. He referred to it, but he did not show how it was going to get to work. All I can say is that agriculture is not depressed on account of landlordism. It is depressed on account of the fact that the tenants cannot make corn growing pay. They have changed their system, and, when my hon. Friend mentioned that the area of corn growing has been reduced, I would point out to him that it is due entirely to the fact that the farmer cannot grow corn at a profit. He can buy corn at a much less price from another country than he can grow it himself. He has therefore changed his system of agriculture and he has gone in for stock rearing. Who will blame him? If you are going to insist upon corn growing you are up against this problem. You will either have to subsidise the farmer or you will have to have protection; one or the other. I am perfectly certain that I for one would never be in favour of either subsidising or protecting the farmer, because it means taxing the food of the people.
What we really want for the farmer is fixity of tenure. It is true that there is a kind of fixity of tenure now, but one year's rent and two year's rent does not secure him sufficiently. I say that fixity of tenure should be made a reality. The next thing the farmer requires is that he shall be secured against an advance of rent on improvements he himself has
carried out. Unless we secure the farmer against an advance of rent on his own improvements he will never put his best interest into the land. I said that there are certain poor landlords, and we always legislate not in order to do anything to the good landlords, but to the poor ones. Those in my opinion are the two main things that are required in order to bring agriculture into a thriving position once more. There is one other thing. We should provide cheap capital. The farmer should not be compelled to sell his stock simply because he is short of money when the market is down. Credit should be provided for him. With these three things I am perfectly certain there will be a revival in agriculture, but as for nationalisation I am perfectly certain that the farmer's lot would be worse under it than it is at present. I do not believe in nationalisation. I believe that the farmer is far better off as he is, and I trust that the House will reject the Motion by a substantial majority.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to offer my cordial congratulations to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on his charming maiden speech, and to say that it is a melancholy fact that for two years he has denied the House the pleasure of hearing him. That has been a distinct public loss. Hon. Members opposite, whenever general Debates on agriculture come along, attempt to treat the matter from the attitude of superior knowledge on the whole agricultural question. It is a fact that they can assume a familiarity with the land which I envy them, but I only wish that they would make better use of it. It is all very well to despise the ignorance of their opponents, but would it not be only fair that they should show a little less ignorance of the proposals that we make? The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment attacked us as being great advocates of Socialist farming. Is he really unwilling to read the proposals that we have made, or is he unwilling to lose the advantage of a bogey which is such a profitable one to use when he tells the electors that the Labour party advocates Socialist farming 1 It is really unworthy of hon. Members opposite constantly to misrepresent what it is that we propose. Lord Bledisloe is not so mis-
leading. He wrote to the "Times" to-day, and he spoke there of the nationalisation of land and the stabilisation of wheat prices, in regard to which he wished to call our attention to the experience of Czechoslovakia. He distinguishes perfectly well between the nationalisation of land and the nationalisation of farming. I wish I had time to deal with all the points raised by hon. Members, but I am tempted to make one answer to the charge that no Socialist fanner has yet been found. I may be excused the pleasure of just quoting from the speech of a farmer at a meeting actually of the Norfolk Farmers' Union, in which he said:
I have been a Conservative all my life, but I am convinced that we shall get nothing from the present Government, and the sooner it is kicked out and a Labour Government installed the better.
May I assume, this subject having been prominently before the public for many months, that our proposals and the proposals of the other parties are really quite well known, and that the general facts of the situation do not need to be dwelt on any longer? We are agreed also in a very remarkable way in regard to a diagnosis of the situation. I think I may say that all parties recognise in effect the failure of landlordism. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Is it not fair to say that a characteristic proposal supported by most of the Governmental party is occupying ownership? Their burning desire is to establish more and more occupying owner-farmers, and that is a recognition of the failure of land ownership as we know it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The elimination of the large landlord is a necessary part of the plan for making as many farmer-ownerships as possible. We are not so revolutionary. We still hold that there is a function for the owner in addition to the farmer, and in that respect we are supported by the characteristic view of the English farmer, who prefers tenancy to the ownership of his land. We want to continue the tenant and the owner, and what we propose is a change in the form of ownership.
My Liberal friends, I see, agree, with the exception of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. H. Jones), who has just spoken, on no less an authority than that of Lord Selborrie, who said yesterday in the "Times" that they had cribbed the
policy of the Socialists. We certainly remember that at the election of 1923 they advanced a promise that their policy combined the advantages of ownership and tenancy. Whatever that may be, to a great extent at all events, if one may take the "Green Book" as representing them, they support the policy of national ownership. What about the proofs of the failure of landlordism? We have quoted them ad nauseam. Edward Wood said the strongest things about the failure of the capitalisation of the land. Experts without end might be quoted, and I have myself given a good deal of evidence from experience of the Crown lands, which are very well managed and are very popular with farmers.
In the few minutes I have I wish to give one further experience which has not been alluded to, the experience of war time. War was a testing time for our institutions, a time when we could not afford waste. It is our view that now also is a time when we cannot afford to waste the land. In war, only the fittest institutions survive. Landlord control in wartime was tried and found wanting. What policy did the Government adopt? Did they hand over the land to the farmers, as if they were the responsible occupying owners; or did they hand over the function of control to the owners, as was done in Germany, where they were made responsible for getting the best out of the land? No; here we took a course which surprised many people. The Government took over the functions of the owners, and exercised them through a new authority. For wartime purposes, the State became a super-landlord. The Government took over the management, they supervised production, and the duties of owners were handed over to county committees, with the ultimate control of the Ministry; and the result was considered to be very good. There was greatly improved cultivation, and an enormous increase of the arable area. Hon. Members may say this was due to high prices, but it must be remembered that for a long period before the war, when prices had been improving, the acreage of arable land was falling, so that that answer is not complete. It was proved by experience that great areas had been wasted, and that bad farming was very frequent and was pre-
ventible. Under the new Regulations no less than 600 tenancies were terminated. There was far more improvement than these figures show, for a far larger number of farmers were assisted and encouraged and did better than before. These facts are very well worth remembering, because they are the kind of evidence which the hon. Member has asked for.
The committees had power to do two things: either to take possession of a farm, or to serve a notice to improve. The power to take possession was used in no less than 45 counties out of 49, and the 800 cases made up an area of 52,000 acres. The power to serve notice to improve was used partly in order to break up land—which did not reflect on the farmers—but it was also used on account of bad farming. There were 600 of these compulsory orders during the War. What happened when the War stopped? Notices were still employed under the name of cultivation orders—not for compulsory ploughing but for good farming. Many thousand orders were issued. I have tried to get records of them, but the counties have not tabulated their records and they are not to be had. There were many prosecutions. The committees virtually continued the War policy, with a view to maintaining the improvement which had taken place. Then a very notable thing occurred when, I think, Lord Lee was Minister of Agriculture. The whole system was embodied in the Agriculture Act, 1920, under which the powers of the committees to enforce good husbandry and improved methods of cultivation, the destruction of weeds, the extermination of rabbits, and so on, were continued, and whole estates were taken over. These elaborate provisions constituted a permanent expression of the experience of the War. The owners' function was superseded. That, I submit, is a statutory confirmation of our case. The Act of 1920 was a tremendous step. The Government realised that supervision by the State was necessary, a precedent which is incontrovertible. The farmers were not driven by penalisation, but they were assisted and encouraged and they were given time and advice. It was recognised that they had often suffered from indifferent equipment or from an indifferent owner, and under D.O.R.A.
and the Act of 1920 a great improvement took place. Then occurred the repeal of the Agricultural Act in 1921. Agriculture had mounted to a higher position. It had arrived at State control and with that greater fixity of tenure could be given to the farmer because there was control. Part of the Act was repealed, and part remained, but agriculture was left in suspension, causing a gap owing to which the function of supervision can hardly now be exercised at all, and the owner, not only for want of capital, but partly for want of power cannot be blamed for the present situation.
The result is a kind of anarchy which is partly responsible for the undeveloped use of the land. Sir Henry Rew has been foremost in making it clear how no statutory provision exists for enjoining on an owner the duty to prevent the tenant from reducing production, the result being a system of tenants without landlords. The sequel to all this is that we have to a far greater degree the bad farming that we see to-day. The output report does not show what amount of land is wasted, partly wasted, and under farmed. The discussion last year and the year before should have led to a survey of the land. Really valuable results of that kind have been obtained by the efforts of Mr. Ashby in Wales. He took a district in every Welsh county and effected a survey by recorders judging each farm aided by local opinion, which is always criticising bad farming in the district. He found in those districts that 40 per cent. were classed as medium, 46 per cent. as good, but no less than 13 per cent. as absolutely bad. I should like to repeat my request for the carrying on of a really effective survey in England. If time permitted great experts could be quoted to any extent on this point. Sir Thomas Middleton talks of the 6,000,000 acres which could be brought into arable cultivation by a slight adjustment of the balance in favour of tillage, and that was secured by the wartime system of control. What is it that we propose to-day? We do not believe that by creating farming ownership you will solve the trouble. The best way is to acquire the land and exercise some such powers as were exercised during the War.
You may be inclined, like Lord Melbourne, to say, "Why cannot you leave
it alone?" I personally am of that disposition, but you cannot leave a thing like this alone when the number of our unemployed is what it is. The White Paper protests that nothing striking, nothing large, can be done for agriculture; national waste is to be cured, if at all, by turning attention to animal diseases, insect pests, rabbits, and so on —these little things, great in quantity, but not of a quality that appeals to us as meeting the situation. It is a very serious situation, and great issues are at stake. We say that something must be attempted, however great the difficulties, to raise our production, to raise our population on the land, to make possible better pay for the men on the land. Agriculture is waning partly because the best blood is leaving the villages. The other day a farmer had to take two men from the workhouse in order to carry on his farm, and, when urban employment begins to improve, the shortage will be disastrous.
The problem is, as my hon. Friend who moved this Motion said, very largely a social problem too, because the modern farm hand, the villager, does resent a want of freedom of speech and action in many villages, and only by public ownership can you obtain it. I submit that our policy alone offers a prospect of better equipment of the land, supervision of farming, and stabilisation of prices, by the scheme with which hon. Members are familiar through our literature. The authorities in the agricultural world, not concerned with party interests or politics, cannot be ignored in this connection. I would like every hon. Member opposite to read Sir Daniel Hall's "Agriculture after the War," or Professor Orwin's book on "The Tenure of Agricultural Land." They would then see much more clearly what is needed to deal with the situation. These writings show that our proposals are the only logical course, or so it appears to me. Against all this logical argument, I do not see that you really have a case. We are told that we are only asking for Socialistic farming, and how-expensive that would be, as shown by the Ministry's settlements in war time, and the co-operative farms, also dating from war time—

Sir G.WHELER: My statement did no refer to war time.

Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Baronet, I submit, did not correctly describe the proposal of the Labour party, which is public land ownership. It is quite definitely stated in the Report that private farming as we know it now will remain the normal method of fanning on the land, and we can more accurately say, as a description of our policy, that it would be a vast extension of Crown lands. There is no time for me to say more, but I submit that this is a solid, practical plan to get more out of the land and to provide a decent life for more people on the land.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the House will be very grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for having allowed us for the first time an opportunity of discussing the Labour policy for solving the difficulties of the farmer, of which we have heard so much on the platform and so little in the House of Commons. The Resolution which has been put down mentions in outline the proposals which have been put before the country in the official programme, but we have not heard very much in the speeches fr6m the Labour Benches to support those proposals in detail. The hon. Gentleman who opened, as so often happens in Debates on Estimates and so forth, said a good deal about the evils of the present position. He told us of the conditions on the land when he started as a boy. When one compares the present position with the eloquent picture that he drew of the lack of freedom, the miserable wages and the grinding conditions that he was faced with, one cannot help thinking how conditions have changed beyond recognition even without these wonderful nostrums of the Socialist party. He started by saying we had to deal with a decaying condition of agriculture. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment gave the figures which were produced in the agricultural census. He did not mention that the output which we have been able to maintain between 1908 and 1925 has been maintained on a smaller area and therefore, is considerable evidence that, far from farming being less efficient, it is able to produce a larger result on a smaller area of land. Of course we know under the disturbance of war and the disastrous fall in prices which followed the War very great changes have taken place, but there is no mystery as to the cause. The
Report on Agricultural Production gives the key. In chapter 11 there are very enlightening tables and the position is summarised by the statement that cereals and farm crops have suffered more during the past few years from falling prices than livestock, and fruit and vegetables have done much better than either. Side by side with this loading of the dice against arable cultication has been the great increase in wages. [Interruption.] I will not take up time by reading from the Report, but if the right hon. Gentleman will consult Chapter 11 he will find that I have fairly summarised the facts as set out in the graphs and statements contained therein.

Mr. MAXTON: What is the document from which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting?

Mr. GUINNESS: The document so often referred to, the Report on the Agricultural Output of England and Wales for 1925.

Mr. MAXTON: I have been through it and I do not see those facts.

Mr. GUINNESS: The position as between grass and arable has been worked out in another inquiry and it has been shown that the receipts per acre are very much the same. If you take the receipts per man employed you will find on grass land that it works out at about £477 as against £261 for a man employed in arable agriculture. The trouble is that the most valuable crops to-day cannot bear the high labour cost which is involved in growing them. With the wage costs for arable and the lower relative receipts, many farmers have naturally been compelled to adapt themselves to economic pressure and to change their method of cultivation to avoid ruin. Surely that change was inevitable under the Free Trade system. It is not Protectionist politicians, but the Agricultural Tribunals of Economists who reported that if the nation wants corn it must pay for it, either by a subsidy or Protection. I was very much interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me refer to the disastrous repeal of the Corn Production Act, from which I gather that he agreed with the view that, if you want arable cultivation, you have to pay for it by subsidy or Protection, but he shied off the conclu-
sion of his reference and relapsed into the anti-climax of the Labour policy, which I think shall be able to show is not going to get us a single extra acre under the plough. Surely, these figures of the change over from arable cultivation to grass farming are no indication of bad farming. To lay down land to grass is a sign, if properly done, of good fanning. Much of our country is, undoubtedly, eminently suited to grass, and, therefore, grass farming is the logical outcome of the Free Trade doctrine that you should produce that for which your country is best suited.
Hon. Members opposite have used another argument about the decay of our agriculture. They have measured it in the terms of the labour which they allege to have been displaced. They did not give us many figures. The right hon. Gentleman founded one argument upon the fact that one of his friends had to employ two men out of the workhouse. That seemed to me rather to bear out the fact that there is no unemployment in agriculture, that there is no surplus of skilled men, but that there is a difficulty in finding enough men for the needs of the farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are in the workhouse!"] No. As a matter of fact, there are more permanent adult male workers on the land this year than there were last year, and last year there were more than there. were the year before. This argument upon the labour employed is very misleading and dangerous, because the countries held up by hon. Members opposite as models come out worst in this respect. The decline in the number of male agricultural workers employed in the various countries was as follow: In Great Britain from 1881 to 1911, 3.2 per cent.; in Germany from 1882 to 1907, 7.3 per cent.; in France from 1896 to 1911, 7 per cent., and in Belgium from 1880 to 1910 15.5 per cent. Those are the figures for Belgium, where we are told that they produce more per acre than we do.

Mr. MONTAGUE: They work 24 hours a day.

Mr. GUINNESS: The census figures show that there has been a decline in wage earners between 1901 and 1921 of 57,000, but it has been largely counterbalanced by an increase of 42,000 in the number of farmers and smallholders. Hon.
Members cannot have it both ways. It is illogical for them to cry out about the landless peasantry and at the same time to lament that there are fewer of these landless workers and more men working for themselves. The decrease of labour on the land is inevitable with the growth of labour-saving machinery, and this Report shows that between 1908 and 1921 there has been an increase of 50,000 oil and petrol engines, and an increase in the number of tractors from none in 1908 to 14,500 to-day. As wages rise the farmer is bound to try and reduce labour costs by the introduction of modern methods to enable him to pay the increasing wages. There is nothing in the policy advocated by the party opposite which will help the worker in any way or give him more employment. We have evidence of this from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who was a Member of the last Government. He says:
There is nothing much in the Report for the agricultural labourer. There is no hope for the small man wanting an allotment or small holding, or getting land for houses. The old three acres and a cow is to be reduced by the Labour party to an eighth of an acre and no chickens. The agricultural unions are against their members getting land because the man who gets land is lost to the union and to his class
Six remedies are included in the Motion which is put forward as their programme on agriculture by the Labour party. I need not discuss three of them because we are in agreement. We are in agreement as to the necessity for adequate capital for drainage and buildings, also as to the necessity for more co-operation and for a greater application of science to agriculture. The Motion mentions a fourth, which we all wish to achieve—the stabilisation of prices, but, unfortunately, the official Labour policy proposes to reach that object by methods with which we on this side entirely disagree. In the official Labour publication approving mention is made of the Australian and Canadian Pools. Much has been done by them to achieve a reasonable return to the producer for his output, but it has been achieved by co-operation, which is the absolute antithesis of State monopoly. In that connection, co-operation and price fixing in the interests of the producer is obviously much easier in the case of these great exporting countries than it is here,
as we are dealing with the requirements of a market where we only supply a small proportion of the needs.
Obviously where the Canadian wheat pool controls ten times our total production of wheat, they are in a much better position to control prices; and they have done a great deal by preventing forced sales just after harvest, to keep up prices, and that stabilisation has done a great deal to help our producers as well as themselves. Fluctuations are always disastrous, and the present Government has done a great deal by stabilising our currency and getting back to the gold standard to give that security and certainty as to the future which cannot be obtained when you have a currency fluctuating in its value as compared with other currencies of the world. The Labour policy is very different from this method of fixing prices by co-operation. They want a vast scheme to control wheat and meat, and the distribution of the milk. I have only time to deal very briefly with wheat. It is stated in the official Labour policy that if prices show a tendency to fall the quantities to be imported will be diminished accordingly. It is apparently suggested that an artificial shortage will be created with a view of putting up prices.
That is really a most remarkable proposal from free-traders who used to placard the country with the large and small loaf and slogans about "Hands off the people's food." I really cannot accept the suggestion that dearer bread is to be brought about to the advantage of the farmer by this machinery of stabilisation and a Wheat Import Board. I prefer what was said by the author of this scheme, Mr. Wise, before the Royal Commission on Food Prices. He said that the farmer would get his price based on that of imported wheat. He hoped to get the price of imported wheat lower in the interest of the consumer. Now nationalised food and lower prices may be very nice for the consumer, but as the farmer's price is to be based on the lower foreign price, I really do not see where the farmer is to come in or how stabilised prices of that kind are going to enable him to plough his land.
I am not really concerned with the political or financial danger as to feed-
ing the whole population, nor with the financial or economic or administrative difficulties in which this scheme would land us. I do feel it would be disastrous to the farmer because it would inevitably bring about lower wheat prices, as it would cheapen foreign wheat, not because the Wheat Board would necessarily buy more wisely than those who at present buy our wheat, but because whatever miscalculation they made the consumer clearly would never be expected to pay more for his wheat than the contemporary world price. The consumer would get the advantage of forward purchases when those purchases had been achieved at favourable rates, and he would demand to get the benefit of world prices at the cost of a subsidy when forward purchases turned out wrong. There is no doubt that this proposal to stabilise in the interest, not of the producer, but of the consumer, would make the position of the arable farmer very much worse.
The other two proposals are to bring about State ownership and control of cultivation. The late Prime Minister said in his pamphlet on "The Prosperous Countryside":
There cannot be private ownership of land and a good system of cultivation.
That is a most astounding statement because in every country in the world you have private ownership of land. Therefore, as you cannot have good cultivation with private ownership of land, nowhere in the world have you got good cultivation—not even in Denmark or Belgium or in any of those countries which are held up to us as models. To achieve this which has never been achieved in any country in the world, we are to go in for confiscation. Nothing is to be allowed for building or amenity values, although the present owners have paid large sums for them. The gross income from land has been practically level for more than 100 years. The landlord has remained the one party in agriculture whose position has been worsened in the real value of his income since the War. The farmers and labourers are all rather better off than before the War, whereas the landlord—if you compare his present rent with his pre-War rent and correct it in the same way from the purchasing power standpoint as you do the position of the worker—is 42 per cent. worse off. During the last 100 years the landlord
has put vast sums into the land in improvements, and I really can see no justice in the proposal that after all that he has done in the public interest, his land should be confiscated without due compensation.
The other proposal is that farming should be controlled by agricultural committees. [Interruption.] It was laid down quite definitely on page 6 of the official Labour policy, that not in all cases, but where suitable, farmers would have to carry on under the orders of the committees. These committees are to consist of equal numbers of workers and farmers, but they are to be out-voted by the nominated members. That is an extraordinary policy from those who talk about trusting the people. It is based on the astounding fact that if you take a stupid man and set him down at a table on a committee, you are going to get a great deal more wisdom out of him than he ever possessed before. If the farmer is inefficient he will remain inefficient if you set him on a committee, especially if you out-vote him on that committee by those who have no financial respnsibilities. Of course scientific knowledge can quite well transform the production from our soil and the marketing of our output, and we believe that these scientific lessons will be best applied by individuals helped and taught by the State,

and not by committees who cannot have any personal knowledge of the varieties of the land and its need for individual cultivation.

We believe that the problem of standardising other industries is nothing like as formidable as the problem of standardising production of the land in its ever-changing mood and clime. Production and distribution will achieve much better results if they are left to individual effort and kept up to the mark by competition and survival of the fittest. Our White Paper offers a very welcome contrast to the revolutionary proposals of the party opposite. Instead of compulsion we believe in education and encouragement. Instead of destroying the foundation, we believe in strengthening the weak places. We are convinced that the future depends on the better balancing of prices and costs, and that the prosperity of agriculture can be ruined by the proposals in the Motion before us and can be helped only on the lines of the Amendment. We believe that prices are more than politics and lowered costs than land reform.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 246.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baker, Walter
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayes, John Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.


Bromley, J
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Riley, Ben


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sullivan, Joseph


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Taylor, R. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, C. H. {Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tinker, John Joseph
Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter


Townend, A. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley. W.



Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Mitchell, S (Lanark, Lanark)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. B. (Ayr)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
Nelson, Sir Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley,
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Neville, R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Barclay- Harvey, C. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grant, Sir J. A.
Owen, Major G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perring, Sir William George


Bennett, A. J
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bethel, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Philipson, Mabel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brass, Captain W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rees, Sir Beddos


Briscoe, Richard George
Hawke, John Anthony
Remer, J. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd,Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)


Chapman, Sir S.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cockerlli, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lamb, J. O.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lougher, Lewis
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-Genera Sir J. H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Strauss, E. A.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lumley, L. R
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Duckworth, John
MacIntyre, Ian
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Templeton, W. P.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


England, Colonel A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M)
Margesson, Captain D
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tinne, J. A.




Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Wolmer, Viscount


Waddington, R.
Wiggins, William Martin
Womersley, W. J.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts, Dr. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Major Sir Granville Wheler and Sir




Hugh Lucas-Tooth.


Resolution agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PACIFIC CABLE BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Second Schedule.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress.; to sit again To-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords.]

Order for Consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this Bill, I have to call the attention of the
House to the fact that the Standing Committee on the Bill, by inadvertence, inserted a Clause for which they had no authority under the Resolution passed by the Committee of the Whole House, and confirmed by the House. It is necessary, therefore, to re-commit the Bill.
Ordered, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of Clause 5."—[Mr. Guinness.]

WAYS AND MEANS [31st MARCH].

Resolution reported,

COMMISSIONERS OF CROWN LANDS (STAMP DUTY).

"That the exemption from Stamp Duty conferred by any enactment in respect of documents made or executed by or with the Commissioners of Crown Lands shall cease."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell."]

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eleven o'Clock.